I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here anyway - that people go to bookshops instead of online because they want to pay to humiliate the staff?

I’m arguing that people go to bookshops instead of online bc of the convenience. But they don’t really stop to think about the fact that “convenience” is often predicated on the ability to treat staff as if they aren’t worthy of basic civility. At least at the B&N/Borders type places anyway.

I’m hardly trying to argue that prostitution is “special,” I’m pointing out that Amanda’s belief that most johns visit prostitutes bc they get to treat them like trash fits into my experiences as a service worker.

I’m not outraged at the idea of prostitution, I’m outraged at the sexism that pervades society and I’m beyond annoyed at those who argue that johns only go to prostitutes for the “convenience” - and therefore can’t possibly be as mean as those feminist say they are - without really considering what “convenience” entails in our sexist society.

bc while prostitution may not be “special” it certainly isn’t just like working at a bookstore, either. Not just because the illegal nature of selling sex puts workers at an extreme disadvantage (which needs to be fixed asap), but bc of the way society views women and sex.

And seriously, mean? For pointing out that you are trying to have it both ways by claiming to always being civil to staff, but then completely ignoring the fact that staff don’t have the luxury of defining “civil” as you do? (Not to mention the issue that however nice you are doesn’t change the fact that not everyone is.)

And you know this because you’ve spent many years directly invovled with this issue, right?

Yes, anony, this is exactly right. I know you thought you were being sarcastic. Amazing how that works, isn’t it?

Of course for street-workers there is no such system - another reason why decriminalisation is good for public health.

As for the proportion of street workers who are drugusers - I would suggest your statisticis are wrong, unless sex work is very different in the US. Most sex workers work in brothels for good money. And yes, usually heavy drug users are excluded from brothels. I think the figures you’re talking about - sex workers becoming “hooked”? How does that work? - are in the realm of myth.

I am actually shocked that drug use is so high among street prostitutes in Australia, my understanding is that in the U.S., something like 5% of sex workers start to support a drug habit, and a larger number (maybe 10-15%) become hooked either by pimps or just because. Are drug users excluded from brothels?

Ismone, patient 0 may have had American sex partners, but HIV started in the gay community in Australia very soon after America and spread rapidly. Both countries introduced the free condom (i.e. harm reduction for gay communities) model early in the development of HIV in that community (back when being gay was much more stigmatised than it is now), and the prevalence of HIV has followed similar paths in both countries’ gay scenes. It is in injecting drug user populations - where HIV arrived later and spread faster - that the epidemic has been different, and the main difference is the needle/syringe model.

If it can work in gay communities and IDUs with HIV, you can be pretty confident that it will work amongst sex workers with chlamydia. I think (long time since i checked) that sex workers are seen as a sentinel population for chlamydia in Australia and their incidence and prevalence rates are broadly similar to those of non sex-workers. This is a triumph of, first, sex worker unions and their outreach programs and, later, of law reform in key markets. The harm reduction model works very well, but I don’t think it is very well received in the US generally, and some of the comments here (and in this debate generally) reflect that. It’s as if you guys are still trying to invent a very well worn wheel, and thrashing over arguments which were pretty much settled in the UK and Australia 20 years ago.

As regards street workers and the way in which decriminalisation may help them - in Sydney, Australia, some areas are designated kerb crawling areas, where it is not illegal to solicit sex work or loiter with intention. This makes it easy for police to protect sex workers from assault (which, believe it or not, they often do now), makes the sex workers easy to reach with health outreach programs, and keeps them working close to health centres, needle/syringe exchanges, womens shelters and homeless shelters. There are also some semi-formal places for women to use as rooms for sex. The sex worker outreach project also runs an “ugly mug” scheme for street-based workers, where dangerous clients are reported and information is handed out (with descriptions and behavioural descriptions) to these women. The police tend to cooperate with this and with the health, treatment and outreach programs (quite explicitly at times). Almost all the women working on the streets in Sydney are drug users, i.e. very vulnerable, and often from very poor and violent backgrounds. This model is absolutely the best I have seen for keeping these women alive and (mostly) disease free until they can kick their drug habit. And it has one huge advantage - seriously addicted women who cannot do sex work will do property or violent crime, and they will get caught. Keeping them out of prison keeps them away from Hepatitis C and also helps them keep their children, if they have any.

So even the poorest and worst off sex workers can be helped by decriminalisation, and losing all the things I just described is the price of keeping it illegal so you can fight a highly strategic moral war against sexual exploitation - which will still happen to these women no matter what, because they are addicted to heroin.

Do you think that some of the difference between HIV rates in the US and Australia could have to do with patient 0 having a number of American sex partners? (Not blaming it all on him, just wondering if the epidemic is larger here because it started sooner.)

Also, I do not get a sense that the posters here who are opposed to legalization take issue with sex workers (I use the word prostitute as well because some call themselves sex workers while others call themselves prostitutes). I see a lot more john-hate on this thread than anything else, and also concern that it will increase the numbers of people in prostitution and/or not decrease the risks of illegal prostitution. So as I put it upthread, allow people to pat themselves on the back for doing the “right” thing, without helping the very worst off, who I presume to be street sex workers.

Your patience and pedagogical style here have been a welcome change of pace from the bickering and name-calling that tends to occur when people disagree.

I will read the links you’ve posted about comparative HIV rates. And to be clear, I’m sure that there *is* a direct correlation between the decriminalization of sex work, and improved health conditions for all those directly or peripherally involved.

The reason it’s relevant to decriminalisation of sex work is that they are all part of the same harm reduction philosophy. I don’t get the impression that many people in the US have yet come to grips with harm reduction, and until they do they face the risk of HIV escaping the injecting drug user population through sex workers. As well, of course, as spreading chlamydia, which is easily treatable but has devastating consequences (infertility) if left untreated by women who do not realise that their partners are shagging sex workers unsafely when they go on their business trips. If commenters here aren’t swayed by concern for the fate of women (sex workers) incapable of protecting themselves against STIs and HIV in a dangerous environment, perhaps they can be swayed by the thought of the innocent partners of those evil johns who use the power an illegal market gives them to extort dangerous services.

Point taken about the language, Foucault.

While I agree with most of what flashheart argues, particularly that sex work should be decriminalized to protect the workers, I am not exactly sure that the decriminalization of sex work has a great deal to do with the comparative rates of HIV infection in the UK, Australia, and the United States.

I think that part of our “shockingly high” rate of infection is simply a result of our population. The more people there are, the more chances that some (or many) of them will be infected with HIV (and other diseases).

For the record, although I use the terms “call girl,” “prostitute,” and “hooker,” I don’t intend these terms as insults to sex workers. I use them interchangeably with “sex worker.” I know my reason sucks–I like colorful language–but it gets boring to say “sex worker” all the time. I say “hooker” just as respectfully as “sex worker.” But I do see your point that these terms may carry a very different cache for those who value certain kinds of “work,” but not others.

A big part of the problem here is that the USA still hasn’t properly come to grips with the twin ideas of public health and harm reduction like the rest of the world. So adult left-wing people in the US are still struggling with the idea that decriminalising something they (personally) think is immoral will actually have a bigger benefit for society (and for them) than the status quo. This idea is pretty broadly accepted in England and Australia, which is why our HIV rates are so low and those in the USA are so shockingly high - particularly amongst injecting drug users, who are very likely to also be sex workers, and least able to insist on condom use in an illegal work environment.