« Solving Rhode Island’s Budget Crisis: What Should be Done? | Main | Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Advisor »
The Future of Prostitution in Rhode Island
By BrianHull | August 6, 2009
There is a lot of confusion and disagreement regarding the two bills going through the Rhode Island General Assembly right now which seek to criminalize indoor prostitution. And of greater importance, there is much disagreement surrounding the social benefits and costs of criminalizing prostitution and punishing those involved in the sex industry. As a reminder, indoor prostitution in RI is currently legal, although there are statutes which criminalize profiting off of someone else’s sex work (11-34-5.1), inducing someone to become a prostitute, i.e. pandering (11-34-1), and transporting or housing a prostitute (11-34-5). Legislation sponsored by Rep. Giannini (H 5044) and Senator Jabour (S 0596) seek to close the indoor prostitution loophole. The two bills passed their respective chambers and their differences will need to get hammered out before it can be signed into law. The following is a brief review of the legislation, a discussion about the justification for and opposition to the bills, and to a greater extent a discussion about prostitution in general. This information is intended to assist the public in better understanding the issue and to guide policymakers in developing a progressive policy response which addresses the issue of prostitution in the state of Rhode Island, regardless of whether it occurs indoors or outdoors.
Let’s begin our discussion with Senate Bill 0596. The act essentially invalidates the current pandering, loitering, solicitation, transportation, and profiting laws dealing with prostitution and replaces them with new language regarding commercial sexual activity. This new language criminalizes prostitution, loitering, soliciting, or permitting prostitution to occur, regardless of location. The fines and penalties are relatively more punitive to clients, rather than the prostitutes themselves, however, the legislation would place a penalty on any agent involved in commercial sex work. On its face, it is a very evenhanded approach to criminalizing prostitution.
I had a short conversation with Sen. Jabour about the legislation and to get a better understanding about his approach. His explanation was that law enforcement believes that prostitution is a problem in the state of RI and that it impacts quality of life issues in the neighborhoods in which prostitution occurs. The absence of a penalty provision for indoor prostitution emasculated law enforcement from prosecuting what happens inside, regardless of the social costs borne by the neighborhood. He also believes that sex trafficking is an important related issues, in that there were several shocking examples of trafficked women being forced to live in squalor as prostitutes, but that it should be handled separately (more on this later). And while much of the dispute surrounding prostitution involves the penalties placed on prostitutes, Sen. Jabour ‘s legislation dictates that the liability should be place on everyone involved in the transaction: the prostitute, the client, and any property owners allowing prostitution to occur inside their establishments.
With House Bill 5044, Rep. Giannini told me that initially her desire to criminalize prostitution stems from the secondary, but related issue of human sex trafficking. The penalties for first and subsequent offenses in the House legislation are significantly more punitive than are those in the Senate version, although there exists an “affirmative defense” clause removing culpability from those who were “forced to commit a commercial sexual activity.” The justification for this, says Giannini, is to punish those who have forced people into prostitution, while exonerating the prostitute. Rep. Giannini reasons that her anti-prostitution bill should be considered in conjunction with the human trafficking law (H 5661), and that by combining the two, law enforcement officials will have the tools necessary to prosecute those who exploit individuals (including minors) through human trafficking for sex. This is a noble goal indeed. Giannini’s original intent wasn’t to criminalize prostitution per se, but to rescue those who are being exploited by human traffickers. The only way police are going to be able to enforce human trafficking laws in Rhode Island, says Giannini, is to criminalize indoor prostitution as well.
As a side note, I see two problems with the affirmative defense clause, and unfortunately, Giannini’s responses did not alleviate my concern. First, the clause could be used by persons who wish to escape punishment, who were not “forced,” but falsely accuse someone else as a human trafficker. The invalidity of a false claim would only come out through an emotionally painful and humiliating investigation, one which could be socially or economically devastating. Second, as stated by supporters of Giannini’s legislation, victims who are forced to participate in commercial sex acts typically aren’t cooperative with law enforcement. This could be due to a multitude of reasons (shame, mistrust of police, physical or emotional abuse, immigration issues, etc.) and Rep. Giannini’s assumption that immunity from prosecution will encourage cooperation may not be correct. My understanding of the legislation is that participants in forced sexual activity would be prosecuted if they are uncooperative with an investigation by law enforcement. While this is not Rep. Giannini’s intention, the possibility does exist.
This is a major sticking point for several groups, chiefly among them are the Rhode Island chapters of the National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union. RI NOW views prostitution as “a complex, social and political issue that cannot be solved by increasing rates of incarceration for the prostitutes.” They advocate for social service and police education programs rather than prison, because “the unnecessary incarceration of sex workers that this bill proposes … actually increases the likelihood that they will return to prostitution.” The RI ACLU agrees and states that legislation crafted which punishes prostitutes, especially those subjected to human trafficking, “only serves to further victimize victims.”
Arguments against criminalizing prostitution, and specifically the punitive punishments contained in Giannini’s House Bill, are based on a few principles. First, the recidivism rates of street prostitutes in Rhode Island are extremely high. Of the 236 prostitution arrests occurring in 2008, 182 served time in prison. These individuals, on average, were convicted 6 times for prostitution. About one-third of women convicted for prostitution return to prison within one year, and 80% return to prison within 3 years. This indicates the futility of arrests as a deterrent to a life of prostitution. Second, the incarceration of prostitutes has unintended economic consequences for sex workers, reducing their opportunities for “legitimate” employment and increasing the likelihood that they will return to prostitution. There is an unfortunate reality of our society; the phenomenon of prostitution typically stems from economic need. Third, the cost of jailing prostitutes is expensive and would be better spent on services to shift prostitutes to other careers.
To recapitulate, on the one hand, Sen. Jabour’s legislation seeks to criminalize indoor prostitution for the sake of closing the loophole differentiating indoor from outdoor prostitution so that law enforcement can effectively prosecute sex-for-pay activities which occur indoors. On the other hand, Rep. Giannini’s legislation seeks to empower her human sex trafficking legislation by granting law enforcement the tools to prosecute sex trafficking by criminalizing indoor prosecution. Her reasoning for this is that it’s necessary to protect those who are forced into the sex industry. These different justifications will lead to a better understanding of the functions of the individual bills. The Senate bill wants to close the loophole and treat indoor and outdoor prostitution equally while the House bill wants to criminalize prostitution regardless of location so that the state can prevent human sex trafficking. This is a very important distinction to make. Giannini’s bill only addresses prostitution so that human sex trafficking can be addressed.
At this point, it is vitally important to differentiate the different types of prostitution, and identify some assumptions and justifications. There needs to be distinction made between levels of violence of street and indoor prostitutes. There needs to be clarification when speaking about prostitution whether the sex worker is male, female, or transgender prostitutes, and whether any conclusions can be generalized to all or are specific to one group. There needs to be distinction made between underage sexual exploitation and adult prostitution. Lastly, there needs to be a differentiation made between forced prostitution and consensual prostitution. Of course none of these categories is mutually exclusive. Each subset of prostitution will require proper analysis in order to better understand the nature of the issue, and what to do about it (if anything).
Violence among Street and Indoor Prostitutes
There is a substantial body of work (if one chooses to read it) that addresses the differences between street prostitution and indoor prostitution with regard to levels of violence. One main argument made against decriminalizing the sex industry is the violence inherent in the system and suffered by prostitutes. Typically, opponents of prostitution use figures that show anywhere from 60-99% of prostitutes have been victims of some sort of violence (raped, murdered, robbed, assaulted, punched, slapped, kicked, strangled, threatened with a weapon, stabbed, kidnapped, etc.). While these numbers are staggering, the honest truth is the methodology used in these studies is fatally flawed and suffers from self-selection bias, unrepresentative convenience sampling, and ideological bias.
Studies have shown significant differences between prostitutes who work on the street, indoor prostitutes, call girls, and escorts regarding levels of violence, work safety issues, and “job satisfaction” (yes, job satisfaction). As a case in point, there is a study of female street and indoor prostitutes in England which shows indoor prostitutes experienced violence only about 1-14% of the time (depending on the type of violence), levels dramatically lower than the 60-99% rates used by opponents of prostitution. While street prostitutes are the most vulnerable and the most victimized, they account for only one-fifth of all prostitution in the U.S. The lack of distinction between indoor and outdoor prostitution obviously inflates the incidence of violence among all sex workers, and this is done purposefully for political reasons. Moreover, there are no distinctions made between the violence which occurs during the transaction, and the violence which occurs by the hand of the pimp, which technically is violence occurring outside of prostitution. Again, this skews the result.
I do not pretend that indoor prostitution is free from violence, nor do I contend that a minimal level of violence within the commercial sex industry should be allowed. What I am saying is that the research and figures obtained from street prostitutes cannot be applied to all other forms of sex work. To do so is to be disingenuous. Due to the nature of prostitution, there has not been, and likely will never be, a valid random sampling from which to glean accurate results. Any data presented by anyone is statistically inconclusive. Any results offered to support a claim in favor of or opposed to criminalizing or legalizing prostitution can only be regarded as a very rough estimate. This is an important point which generally gets lost in a very emotional debate.
Male, Female, Transgender Prostitutes
Unfortunately, there is no clear data regarding the victimization rates for the different groups of prostitutes. Just as the statistics used cannot be accurately applied to determine levels of violence among indoor or outdoor prostitutes, they cannot be applicable to male, female, or transgender prostitute groups.
Underage and Adult Prostitution
The illegality of sexual exploitation of a minor is relatively easy to address in Rhode Island. I had the unfortunate distinction of serving on a state grand jury reviewing evidence presented by Rhode Island for child sexual assault cases and then determine if there was enough evidence to prosecute the case.
The various sections under Title 11 – Chapter 37 of Rhode Island’s General Laws deal with child exploitation and sexual contact with children of two distinct age groups: under the age of 14, and between 14 and 16 years of age (the legal age of consent in Rhode Island is 16 years of age). There are different penalties depending on the nature and degree of sexual contact and the age of the perpetrator. All this is a good thing, and adult involved in sexual contact with anyone under the age of 16 should be prosecuted using these laws, regardless of whether or not it occurred indoors or outdoors, or whether it was a commercial act or not. The law is very clear, and arguments about human sex trafficking of minors or prostitution are generally irrelevant.
As it stands, adult prostitution is restricted in certain areas by Title 11 – Chapter 34 of Rhode Island’s General Laws. It is currently illegal to encourage a person to become a prostitute, to transport a person for the purpose of prostitution, derive support from a prostitute’s earnings, loitering in a public place to pick up a prostitute, or solicit a prostitute from a motor vehicle. Aside from these stipulations, adults are free to transact pay-for-sex services anywhere in the state.
Forced Versus Consensual Prostitution
In an overly broad conceptualization, it can be reasonably defended that forced prostitution is always wrong and consensual prostitution is always right. There is much disagreement with this second point as some believe that all prostitution is inherently exploitative and coercive. This is the major point of contention from which anti-prostitution efforts stem. It is also subject to an enormous amount of subjective bias and moral indignation. I can understand the difficulty in trying to balance the benefit of protecting a person’s freedom to engage in commercial sex work if they so desire with the necessity of protecting those exploited in the commercial sex and human trafficking industries. As a matter of course, I’m more supportive of restrictive freedom if that restriction leads to a decrease in sexual exploitation. The evidence, however, is largely inconclusive, or wildly exaggerated and dubious. Moreover, emotionally charged claims that prostitution is inherently evil and violent because of its exploitative nature are unhelpful and can never be proved with empirical evidence.
In the area of sex trafficking, there is a willful avoidance, and a complete disregard for, consensual migration for commercial sex work. It is automatically assumed that if a person crossed a border and is performing sex, that person is being exploited by a human sex trafficker. It’s very possible that he or she is, but it is not conclusive, and it is intellectually dishonest to generalize as such. Studies show that many migrant sex workers were selling sex before coming to the U.S., and were well aware that they would be involved in the sex industry when they arrived. Generally, the (mostly) women make an economic decision to move to the U.S., or other areas, and work in the sex industry. Yes, there are instances of predators luring unsuspecting victims into the commercial sex trade. Yes, there are instances of contractual obligations being changed in transit. Yes, there are instances of unanticipated debt bondage. These claims, however, are grossly overstated. Understanding that will provide better legislation to address legitimate sex trafficking problems and protect and serve those unfortunate to get caught up in it. But disregarding a body of evidence regarding consensual migration for sex work is unproductive.
Sex trafficking and prostitution are generally linked as one and the same, and in some cases they are. There is little evidence, however, to substantiate this claim. Prostitution is a type of work. Sex trafficking is a means of transportation to access that work. They need to be addressed separately so that laws can focus on the specific elements of each issue that are socially disadvantageous or corrosive. Additionally, claims made that the human sex trafficking industry is growing, or that Rhode Island is becoming a magnet for sex traffickers are spurious. Data does not exist to substantiate any claim about the relationship between the legality of indoor prostitution and the commercial sex industry or human sex trafficking. With regard to the other region in the nation in which prostitution is legal, Las Vegas, there is no link between the city’s liberal prostitution laws and the incidence of human sex trafficking. Interestingly enough, and directly refuting this claim, Holland, a nation in which prostitution is legal (and well-regulated, I might add), has seen a decrease in human trafficking.
As for consensual prostitution, there are moral claims espoused that make it much more difficult to have a rational discussion about the issue and develop policy which addresses specific problems. One side of the debate claims that prostitution is coercive while the other side disregards the legitimate instances of horribly wretched living conditions and existences some sexual slaves are forced to endure. What is missing, to a large extent, is an honest discussion about the matter of degree. A 16 year old girl forced to have sex with 10 guys a night against her will in a strange hotel room is vastly different than a woman selling erotic massages and handjobs on the internet. The first scenario is horribly grotesque and needs to be prevented as best as possible. The second scenario isn’t much of a problem and should not be subject to the same set of rules used to prevent the first scenario. The nuances of sexual exploitation, migration and trafficking of sex work, and prostitution are many. Any single heavy-handed approach which criminalizes all activities in the sex industry is far too punitive and dismissive of the multiple shades of commercial sex work which is performed for reasons too numerous to list. While I can understand the reasoning behind their individual approaches to remedying the problems of prostitution, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation in the state, the individual pieces of legislation largely ignore the varied nuances which are part and parcel of the prostitution phenomenon.
So, the question that needs to be asked is, “What do we do from here?” There are many different ways to look at the issue of prostitution: as an activity resulting from economic desperation, as a public safety or public health issue, as a criminal justice issue, as a land use or property value issue, etc. Depending on the “problem” to be “solved,” there will be a specific approach. Unfortunately, there is a grossly unfair social stigma attached to sex workers, whether they are prostitutes, strippers, exotic dances, porn stars, erotic models, etc. This stigma clouds the judgment of well-intentioned and generally reasonable people. But let’s put that aside and determine what the problem is and what the corrective action should be for that problem.
There are three fundamental principles which, I argue, are universally accepted by all, and which should be the foundation upon which we build progressive legislation: first, we would like to reduce the incidence of prostitution in the state; second, we want to protect the health and safety of those involved in commercial sex work; third, we want to stop human sex trafficking as best as possible. With these three underlying principles and with the available data, we can develop policies which consider the root causes of prostitution and the many layers and nuances of those involved in the sex industry. We should base any and all prostitution related legislation of the following 5 criteria.
1. Decriminalize prostitution
· Imprisonment does not work to deter prostitution, it never has, and it is very expensive. The monetary savings from no longer arresting, charging, prosecuting, trying, and imprisoning prostitutes would be better spent on social awareness programs, police investigation of legitimate human trafficking and exploitation of sex workers. Arguments used that suggest our youth will flock in drove to a career in prostitution are unfounded. Moreover, policies (to be discussed below) will be implemented to discourage commercial sex work.
2. Make commercial sex work safer
· As stated previously, street prostitution is the most dangerous form of commercial sex work. Transitioning to other forms of sex work, call girls, brothels, massage parlors, etc., will increase the safety of those involved in pay-for-sex professions. While this is not the role of the state, there are policies the state could adopt which would better protect sex workers from violence. Licensing all locations providing sex-for-fee services would create a legitimate place of employment for commercial sex workers. To ensure the safety of workers, and to verify their ages and willingness to work, random monthly or quarterly inspections of establishments could be required for licensing. Any establishment not licensed would be subject to closure and owners would be prosecuted. Any establishment suspected of employing women against their will should be investigated and owners prosecuted. With a policy of licensing, the underground sex trade would shrink, making it more likely to discover those establishments that are involved in human sex trafficking. Some may argue that licensing prostitution is condoning the practice, but this is a short-sighted view. Prostitution exists, and some of it is very dangerous, so let’s make it safer.
· Additionally, the state could establish strong labor and work safety laws specifically adapted to the commercial sex industry, preventing the exploitation of commercial sex workers by the owners of brothels, massage parlors, strip clubs, etc. The state could establish a commercial sex worker tip line for persons to anonymously tip law enforcement about violations, underage workers, unsafe working conditions, or exploitation. The state could facilitate unionization of sex workers, allowing them to collectively bargain for better working conditions, cleaner and safer environments in which to work, higher pay, and the elimination of exploitative conditions in which sex workers have punitive fees attached to their service.
3. Assist those involved in commercial sex work to transfer to other careers.
· Licensing fees for commercial sex establishments, in combination with decriminalization savings, could be used to provide empowerment services and support for sex workers, drug treatment, mental health services, and job training for those looking for new work.
4. Provide tools for investigation and prosecution of human traffickers.
· Law enforcement should have the tools at its disposal to investigate and prosecute those engaging in human trafficking, whether for the sex industry or for any other reasons. This can be done without criminalizing prostitution, but rather based on licensing requirements. The state should also implement training programs to better locate and identify exploited and trafficked sex workers. Local and state police should establish close working relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and with national and international non-governmental organizations dealing with human trafficking. Law enforcement should work closely with sex worker informants to ensure that establishments are not employing underage sex workers or trafficked persons, even going so far as offering rewards for information leading to prosecution. None of these would require, and would be more effective than, criminalization of prostitution
5. Educate public of social consequences of prostitution.
· A broad based and state wide educational effort regarding the social risks of prostitution should be a part of the equation in order to reduce the demand for commercial sex services.
Some of these proposals may seem shocking, but if the goal of the current anti-prostitution legislation is to protect commercial sex workers from exploitation and human trafficking, there is a much better way to do that than what is currently suggested. The methods proposed in the House and Senate legislation will likely have the unintended consequence of pushing commercial sex work underground, making it more difficult to identify, or provide services to, exploited sex workers. Additionally, the illegality of sex work, and the criminal records of convicted prostitutes, will further disadvantage sex workers from finding other forms of gainful employment.
If the goal of criminalizing sex work, however, is based on the belief that prostitution is bad, you’re entitled to that opinion, and you’re free to disagree with this analysis because of your opposition to prostitution. I will be unfortunate though, because we need to get past the emotional reaction to prostitution and the moral crusade of “saving” prostitutes. We need to find better ways to protect those involved in the sex industry while encouraging them to seek other work and not disparage the choices that theyve made. My warning to state legislators in that if the final bill is based on either of the plans currently offered, the state will begin spending significantly more money to battle a “problem” that will never go away. Prostitution has been ubiquitous throughout history and stretches back as far as the 18th century BCE, being addressed in the Code of Hammurabi, and it’s very likely to have existed for centuries before then. Prostitution will be a part of our society for centuries to come, regardless of punitive laws trying to restrict it. If we turn our attention to the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing, and trying adolescents as adults, we can see exactly what NOT to do to address what are seen as profound social problems. Let’s not make the same mistake with prostitution as well.
Topics: Police, Politics, Prostitution, Rhode Island, Violence |
August 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Great job getting the discussion going, Brian. I agree it is needed and overdue. And that there is a lot of confusion about what stands, what is proposed and what is the goal.
I’d like to address a couple inaccuracies and points you make.
First of all, Holland has NOT seen a decrease in sex or human trafficking. They’ve actually seen an increase (see the National Centre against Human Trafficking data). In fact, in 2008, 60% of the women trafficked to the Netherlands were destined for the sex trade and the Dutch gov’t is now reconsidering their decriminalized policy. In addition, in 2007, the Netherlands closed 1/3 of its brothels in the red light district due to increases in trafficking, violence and organized crime. Germany, where prostitution is also decriminalized, has seen the same increases and is also reconsidering their policy for many of the same reasons (See Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking (Laczko and Gramegna, 2003).
Alternatively, in Sweden, where prostitutes are not penalized but the johns are, both trafficking and prostitution have declined since the law was enacted in 1995.
I also take issue with your definitions of prostitution and trafficking as “a type of work” and “means of transportation to access that work” respectively. Saying prostitution is a type of work almost implies that it is a career choice and I would argue that prostitution is not about choice. In fact, the 1995 Swedish law states that prostitution is a human rights violation against women. Based on all the data I have seen about the very high prevalence of drug addiction, sexual abuse, trafficking and violence in the prostitution “industry”, I agree. In addition, human and sex trafficking is an industry and activity that exploits people into slavery. End of definition.
I also am very much in favor of Sweden’s model penalizing johns. A combination of criminalizing johns, and “John School” (usually a half day program where johns are educated about the negative effects of prostitution) has proven to be highly effective in many US cities and shown to reduce recidivism.
Finally, I wholeheartedly disagree with the frame of mind that prostitution has been around for ages so we better live with it. Slavery had been around for ages. Genocide has been around for ages. You get the point. Besides, isn’t the goal of progressive politics to reform and change? Prostitution is harmful to women and children and driven by men. If men didn’t want it, it would not exist. This in itself creates an imbalance and a strong demand that will always provide opportunities to exploit those who are weaker. I have no moral issue with paid sexual activity in theory, I have an issue with the reality of women being exploited and not having better options. How many women really grow up wanting to be a prostitute?
I believe we need an approach that DOES NOT penalize women but instead provides them with alternatives and options (which we agree on) and DOES penalize johns, as well as, mandate some form of John School to address the root of the demand.
In other words, how about a progressive law that promotes women’s equality rather than their literal prostitution?
Look forward to everyone else’s comments-
Josephine
August 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Why not try the harm reduction aprosch they use in Sweden where selling is legal and buying is illegal. The only way to go after this is to go after demand not supply. I know this will be hard in RI where we never arrest johns.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Happy,
while theoretically attractive because it addresses gender inequality, the Swedish approach of criminalising male clients of female sex workers shows no evidence that it is working, and every evidence that it has made working conditions for sex workers worse.
Josephine you are incorrect in many of your statements, although I am sure your beliefs are sincere. I suggest that you read the Dutch Ministry of Justice investigation (Prostitution in the Netherlands 2007)for an evaluation of the change in the brothel laws. The Dutch are not amused by allegations like this, which as elsewhere confuse migration with trafficking. The problems in the Netherlands reflect a rather poorly thought out implementation scheme rather than the effects of decriminalisation. Indeed the Netherlands is not a good example of decriminalisation (federal) but of over-regulation (municipal) which encouraged the development of an illegal sector, hence the closings. This is more an example of ‘legalisation’ which we know does not work. New Zealand is the best example of decriminalisation. Changes in political ideology should not be confused with the failure of policies. Similar arguments apply in Germany.
Sweden simply saw a shift in where sex work was practiced, and was minimal before the law changed. The data on ‘trafficking’ is Sweden is debatable. What radical elements in Sweden say about sex work does not make it true. Sex for money is work, whether you like it or not, and as for choice - well we all face choices, some of us are less fortunate in the range of options than others, but sex workers argue that they made a legitimate choice. They might have made other choices under different circumstances, such as equal pay for women.
Your image of sex work applies to a tiny fraction of sex worker who sell sex for money or drugs in desperation. They have many social problems related to drugs, not sex. It is wrong to generalise.
I am afraid I don’t get your point - you have made a lot of assumptions and assumed them to be true. There is nothing inherently harmful about sex work, except the laws that punish women and deprive them of basic rights. It is not so much being around for ever as a realisation that many countries have come to that it is not going away - even if you try to imprison everyone, as the Chinese tried to. Therefore reducing harm is the priority, and removing sex work from the criminal law is recognised by the United Nations as a priority in that regard. (UNAIDS 2009). John schools don’t work either.
I commend your philosophy - we would all like to work to improve women’s rights and opportunities but don’t oppress them or try to rescue people who do not wish to be rescued. Rather enable and empower them to control their working conditions.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Not sure what to say about all the sex trafficking, but I believe what ever happens between two consenting adults is nobody else’s damn business. Everybody has choices and many women do do it because they enjoy the career. I’m certainly no expert and in fact have never been with a prostitute, but I’m quite certain that there are many women out there making big dollars and are fortunate enough to be choosy about whom they do business with. So, all I have to add to this, is if a woman is a private work for herself prostitute and she has the ability to make her own choices and book appointments with whomever she deems fit, then I just don’t understand why it should be anybody else’s business what 2 or more adults do with their own bodies. Most prostitutes insist on the use of condoms from what I’ve been told and if that’s the truth, then I don’t see any difference between picking someone up in the bar or paying. In fact, I would say the paying service way may be actually safer if she is insisting on protection. You have just as much chance of picking up a STD from any person you meet and decide to sleep with. I guess I’m anti-trafficking, but pro freedom and liberty to do what you see fit as an adult. I think half the reason the government doesn’t like the idea, is the fact that it’s mostly a cash business and they are the ones getting screwed out of their taxes. Yes, the pun was intended.