young, close relative has become an "escort" WWYD?

[notreallymehere]

20 something low closeish relative has become an escort. She has been thinking about it for a while, tried it in London, stopped but now has gone back to it in her home town. She is with what appears to be reputable agency and seems to be making quite a lot of money. Lots of reviews now appearing on her webpage etc. She appears fully happy with her choice - she had a job before (working in a coffee bar) but says that the money is better with this (she has previously worked as a lap dancer). My question is what do I tell my friends/acquaintances if they ask about her. I've discussed this with some people when she first started in London and the reaction was very aggressive "well you should have stopped her" etc etc. (hence name change) Fact is that she is an adult and this is her choice and I cannot see how I can stop her - she is making a far bit of money at this and is very financially motivated. However she is part of the family and it is difficult to avoid the questions but many people are very judgemental (of me for somehow "allowing" this to happen).

Good try, Beachcomber, except that one side are not willing participants. The only way to keep a practice like slavery (or sharia, for example) going is state support. When state withdraws that support, slaves no longer have to obey.

There is no such luck in prostitution where there are many willing sellers. Like OP's relative.

This is a comprehensive and impartial analysis of the Swedish model by Canadians. All of it is interesting, but relevant to our topic of debate:

These witnesses argued that under the Swedish law prostitution has not decreased, but has been pushed underground, putting prostitutes in more dangerous situations where they are increasingly vulnerable to pimps and violent clients. As evidence, they cite discussions with prostitutes in Sweden, and point to reports such as the Working Group on the Legal Regulation of the Purchase of Sexual Services? report, which states that despite an immediate reduction in street prostitution after the law was implemented, the numbers have since stabilized, street prostitution having increased in Malmö and decreased in Gothenburg and Stockholm.246 The National Board of Health and Welfare also noted that although the number of persons selling sexual services seemed to have diminished in major urban centres after the law was introduced, numbers had not diminished on a national scale ? the theory being prostitutes had left major urban centres and gone towards side streets in the suburbs. They argue that this means that persons selling sexual services have become more geographically and socially marginalized, and it is harder for services to get in touch with them. These reports also emphasized increasing use of cell phones and the Internet, suggesting that prostitution did not disappear, it has just adapted.

These witnesses247 argued that Swedish prostitutes feel endangered by the laws, and that because the industry has gone underground, the violence has increased. There are fewer safe places to work, there is limited time for screening clients, and only the more dangerous clients ? who are not afraid of the law ? remain. Because there is more competition and less money to be made, individuals selling sexual services are also more willing to take risks, for example, no longer insisting on the use of condoms. This fact is compounded by the fact that police look for condoms as evidence of prostitution, so prostitutes are less likely to carry them. Witnesses commented that individuals selling sexual services are also apprehensive about the legal protections afforded them under the new law and are thus less likely to report abusive clients to police. Because prostitutes must remain hidden, witnesses point out that informal networks between persons selling sexual services have weakened, increasing opportunities for abuse from dangerous clients or exploitative pimps. The Working Group on the Legal Regulation of the Purchase of Sexual Services points out that there is no documentary evidence from the hospitals or police indicating more violence directed towards prostitutes, but there is significant evidence indicating that the market has become tougher and more prone to violence.

Witnesses such as Katrina Pacey, Director of the PIVOT Legal Society, expressed concern that by pushing prostitution underground, the Swedish law is having a significant detrimental effect upon the most marginalized persons. A document referred to the Subcommittee by Frances Shaver also indicates that prostitutes live a marginalized existence in Sweden, making it potentially even harder for them to exit the trade. They are unable to live with partners because it is illegal to receive any of a prostitute?s income, and many individuals also fear loss of custody of their children if it is ever revealed that they sell sex.248

Finally, it is important to note difficulties with enforcement of the Swedish law. The Working Group on the Legal Regulation of the Purchase of Sexual Services noted that indoor prostitution is not a significant target of law enforcement in Sweden, as it is too resource intensive, although two thirds of prostitution in Sweden takes place indoors.249 Other commentators have observed the difficulty of prosecuting clients who must essentially be caught in the act to be charged. Evidence against pimps is also elusive, as it necessitates the cooperation of clients and persons selling sexual services, neither of which party is usually willing to reveal their activities to the police.250

I think I did better than a nice try - slave labour fits absolutely into your original criteria;

"I cannot think of a single good or service whose use completely disappeared when a state made a moral decision that it should not be traded legally."

I'm a bit surprised that you have nothing to say about the comments I posted in direct response to your questions of yesterday. I'm also surprised that you have ignored the reports I posted, in particular the comments about Sweden.

I'm very uncomfortable with your comparing women to drugs and alcohol too but then I think I already examined that in a previous post.

Beachcomber - re your earlier (very long) post:

You have made interesting observations (gallantry vs bread crumbs, for example) but a lot of what you have said is your personal viewpoint and not fact. And some of your underlying assumptions are demonstrably false. For example:

• You assume outlawing drugs didn't result in their disappearance, because they are pysically addictive. Actually, the majority of them are not. For example, LSD is not addictive, and yet has been very popular (although illegal) substance for the past half century. Ecstasy is not addictive, but it is wildly popular, and has been for decades.

• You also assume that no woman would want to sell sex. You are wrong in this. I wouldn't and you wouldn't but OP's relative obviously would and does. There are many women like her who see it as a job that pays great and is not all that unpleasant when they choose their customers and stick to the ones they find OK.

That Canadian link I posted says it well:

The divergence between the models is philosophical. One sees prostitution as a form of violence against women, and the extension of this thought is that One can never choose to sell sexual servies. The second sees prostitution among consenting adults as a form of work.

You agree with the first model, I agree with the second. Consenting adults should be free to engage in sexual activities of their choice without a moralising state telling them what to do, including where money changes hands.

The duty of the state should be to better enforce the law against the real crime - pimping non-consenting women.

Sorry you thought I was ignoring your previous post. It just took me a long time to write my x-post below.

Prostitution is not the actual sale of a woman, it is a service provided by a woman. I have compared the proposed abolition of this service to those of drugs and abortion, for both of which underground trade has blossomed wherever they are outlawed.

I have not compared women to drugs, just like I have not compared women to abortion, if any such comparison is even possible.

The point was and still is that abolition does not work to eradicate the practice, just drives it underground. This has nothing to do with comparing one service or good with another.

Actually I don't assume that no woman would ever want to sell sex - I don't believe I have ever expressed that view in my life.

I have a friend who was addicted to ecstasy - it would seem his experience is not unique.

alcoholism.about.com/cs/ecstasy/f/mdma_faq06.htm

Anyway I've already clearly stated why I think it is flawed to compare products with groups of people.

Considering that the figure of women who want out of prostitution is given to be around 90%, and that there is evidence that prostitution is intrinsically harmful, damaging and violent, I'm always at a loss to understand why thinking people would try to defend sexually predatory and exploitative behaviour.

Did you know that in the UK the government has found the average age of entry into prostitution to be 15 years old?

If you take away all the pimp controlled women or the women who wish not to be in prostitution you will have very little left. How exactly is a state going to go about doing that anyway? Are the police to check that every trick that is turned is by an over 18 year old woman who is quite happy to have sex with numerous strangers and who is never ever coerced into doing anything she is uncomfortable with?

This is the stuff of fantasy.

X post with Cote.

I would only add a repetition of my post about how the 'raw material' of prostitution is people.

Beachcomber - Please trust me when I say that Ecstasy is not addictive. I have personal experience over several years and know hundreds of occasional or once-a-week users.

"43 percent of those who reported ecstasy use met the accepted diagnostic criteria for dependence"

This is very misleading. In comparison, salt meets more criteria of an addictive substance: withdrawal symptoms, development of tolerance, inability to control level of usage, and difficulty of quitting and restricting (even with full knowledge of health hazards).

I will get to the rest later, as need to get ready to take DC to the beach

Cote don't we all know loads of people who take ecstasy once a week?

My addict mate used to sell drugs - many a weekend I've seen people queue up at his flat desperate for some ecstasy.

Anyway I think this is a total red herring.

I mentioned the addictive factor to drugs as being one reason why they go underground - why are you fixating on that? AFAIA coke, herion, crack, speed, cannabis, ecstasy all create dependences to varying degrees in people - this is one of the reasons that they are illegal.

I think comparing buying drugs with renting women's orifices is flawed (and massively crass actually). I have explained why when I posted about feminist analysis of male/female status with patriarchal society. Jesus we are talking about people here - women and children (average age for entering prostitution found to be just fifteen FFS in the UK).

As I said before - orgasms/fucking will not become illegal just because buying sex does.

Around half of men who buy sex in the UK are in a relationship - they have a sexual partner.

Have you read the two reports I linked to? The ones that say that 89% of punters would be deterred from using prostituion if they risked being added to a sex offender registry?

How would you go about decriminalising prostitution in a way that would protect the 90% of women who want to stop fucking strangers for money?

I'm from Edinburgh which 'tolerates' prostitution - I then lived in Glasgow which does not tolerate prostitution. I knew men who travelled from one city to the other in order to buy sex.

www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/addiction.htm

This sounds exactly like the regular ecstasy users I know.

"Ecstasy is seductive - many users secretly know they would have difficulty going without it in the future, but wouldn't like to admit to it in terms of addiction."

"Frequent Ecstasy use increases tolerance very quickly. Increasingly higher doses are needed to reach an 'acceptable' high. The more you use it the less you feel the loved up empathic feelings and the more the speedy amphetamine buzz takes over."

"Regular users rarely come close to the novelty and surprise of first discovering the ecstasy state. To avoid the build-up of tolerance long breaks should be left between use (at least two months), but a person who really enjoys the feeling they get after taking it may have difficulty spacing out his or her doses of the drug."

"A sign that casual use of Kleenex has become more than just a recreational activity is when the user starts to spend a considerable amount of time in between doses thinking about when he or she can get some more X-TC. Another warning sign that an addiction has started (or is in progress) is when the person is unable to control his or her use of the drug. When the desire to use becomes more powerful than the person's will and they start neglecting everyday activities or their personal relationships to do so, X-TC use has become a problem for them."

AF, he said he was a male earlier up the thread

Andre1960 Sun 09-Jan-11 12:04:17

"I am a human being and part of being a human being is having a sexuality - which in my view is a positive and wonderful thing. Among other things, my sexuality allows me to have orgasms, which I find intensely pleasurable. I do not consider there to be anything wrong in this. I happen to be a man so I experience 'male orgasms'. I am also heterosexual so my sexual interests tend to be focussed on woman. During sexual encounters with women I often have 'male orgasms'. Because part of the joy of sexual encounters is being the focus of some else's sexual interest and it is easy with a little bit of care and consideration to participate in this, my female sexual partners very often have 'female orgasms'. I think my sexuality is very beautiful and I think female sexuality is very beautiful and I adore it when my partners have 'female orgasms'. I love it that men and women have the capacity to have orgasms together. I would not be so careless and disrespectful of women to speak of their orgasms in a manner that implied there is something unpleasant, problematical or shameful about them. I would certainly never talk of 'the female orgasm' as if it somehow existed as something separate from the women who have them. I am not saying that men and women cannot misuse their sexuality, I am just saying that I try to speak carefully and respectfully about female sexuality because I want women to know that I understand that their sexuality is very personal and precious to them and I think it is precious too. Even if they don't think this of themselves, and sadly some do not, I want them to know that I do. "

Another interesting read And a reminder that what we are talking about here is the institution of prostitution as it currently exists in reality - not the myth of the happy hooker which is irrelevant to the vast majority of prostitution.

I read that yesterday AF, and the opening paragraph stayed with me all day today. It really struck home in its truth

"?Wise governments,? an editor in the conomist opined, ?will accept that paid sex is ineradicable, and concentrate on keeping the business clean, safe and conspicuous.?1 That third adjective, ?inconspicuous,? and its relation to keeping prostitution ?ineradicable,? is the focus of this Article. Why should the
sex business be invisible? What is it about the sex industry that makes most
people want to look away, to pretend that it is not really as bad as we know it
is? What motivates politicians to do what they can to hide it while at the same
time ensuring that it runs smoothly? What is the connection between not
seeing prostitution and keeping it in existence?"

And I kept thinking about how true that is. It's kept away and localised into red light districts, out of "respectable" areas. No city planner wants the sex industry to be in their faces, and yet it's the very same group of people who think that the economic transaction between humans is inherently okay

Cote, putting the practicalities of criminalising punters aside, do you believe there is nothing innately wrong with a person buying another for sex? Would you be happy if your daughter became a prostitute?

Beachcomber, sorry

I fucking hate the IMF, the OECD, or any other organization or corporation interested in "economic growth"
It always means that the pockets of fat cat men are lined at the expense of poor women

sorry, I forgot to add the quote I was reacting to in that same PDF
"Structural
development programs run by the International Monetary Fund control
developing economies, profoundly impacting women?s lives. Poverty is one
consequence of these IMF policies, which may also result in women?s
migration to cities for the purpose of economic survival, including prostitution."

Practically every line of that pdf could be quoted .

Beachcomber - The reason why we are digressing to whether ecstasy is addictive is that you suggested the reason why outlawing drugs created their booming underground markets is that they are terribly addictive.

Why did the Prohibition of alcohol fail miserably in the US, in your opinion? Is it because all then-illegal alcohol consumers were addicts?

And what about satellite dishes in Iran? They are illegal and their owners are harshly punished when discovered, but quite popular. I hope you will not be saying "That is because satellite dishes are addictive".

The common thread here is that prohibition if goods and services with eager sellers and buyers will never succeed. They will always find a way.

More specifically, it has failed in Sweden. The link I posted gives detail and names sources.

Sakura - I do believe that there is nothing wrong with buying and selling sexual services. It is not "buying someone" since she will not be his slave for all time.

My views on this are colored by the experience of a research project on Amsterdam's prostitutes for which I interviewed over fifty women working in the Red Light District as well as in escort agencies and brothels. Without exception, all were doing this because they wanted to. They did not feel oppressed. Some had boyfriend in Amsterdam, others came from elsewhere to make good money in a place nobody knows them. (I chose them at random, if you are wondering whether some pimp showed me just the happy ones)

Having said that, I wouldn't be happy if DD chose to be a prostitute, because I have higher aspirations for her including higher education and a profession where she can earn a very good living without risking STDs. And it would break my heart to see people looking down at her.

Then again, I wouldn't want her to be a nudist hippy livIng in a commune and yet I would argue against moral arguments for prohibition of is lifestyle.