Bottom line: I find it an unethical stance to state that prostitutes are essentially free agents who should be able to choose to sell their bodies. They are not free when their behavior is driven by powerful and destructive forces such as abuse, addiction, mental illness and poverty. No one chooses to be afflicted by those conditions either.

(forgive me for retreading stuff hashed out previously)

But these same "powerful and destructive forces" are in play with many that do not engage in prostitution. Do these same "forces" eliminate "free agency" for any drug-addicted lawyers, "dry-drunk" chronic alcoholic preznits, etc.? Should we be "rescuing" such people (particularly by imprisoning them, which then does remove a bit of "free agency" now and in the future)?

How is it that I am being "unethical"? Can you be more specific?

Cheers,

What is it Arne?

Not enough lutefisk in their diets?

Arne's a Norwegian.

Cheers, Arne!

;-)

In 1997, former Miss USA Shannon Marketic filed a lawsuit against the ruling family of Brunei for $90 million.[6] In the case, Shannon alleged that she and 6 other young women were paid $127,200 each for a modeling job in Brunei (whereas on the ABC news program "20/20", Marketic said she was supposed to provide "intellectual conversations" with visiting guests of the royal family). These other women include former Miss Teen USA and future Miss USA Brandi Sherwood, who was invited along by Shannon, and Miss United Kingdom runner up Paula Bradbury.

Marketic maintained that she and the women were held as "sex slaves" and were "intimidated and coerced into performing physically and morally repulsive acts of prostitution."[7] They were apparently ordered to dance for 5-6 hours every night at parties during which their bodies and private parts were groped and grabbed by men. During the dances Shannon was also allegedly abused verbally with comments made about her bare breasts.[8] The women were often told to go with a man to have "tea" with him and then had sex with him.[9] In her interview on "20/20", Marketic said that after 32 days of being held against her will, she managed to smuggle a letter out to the US Embassy; shortly afterwards, she was allegedly paid $10,000 and forced to fly back to the United States alone.[10] The case was thrown out due to the immunity of the ruling family as heads of state.[11] There has been no further investigation into this case although there are allegations both supporting and refuting her claims. Paula Bradbury separately sued the Sultan and won £500,000 in settlement.[12]

The king of Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf spoke well about the Sultan to the Swedish press after a meeting with him, creating a minor controversy in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassanal_Bolkiah

The Swedish Model!

The law was put in effect on 1 January 1999 and inserted into the Criminal code on 1 April 2005. The penalty is fine or prison of maximum of six months. So far, the law has led to about 500 convictions, but nobody has yet been sentenced to prison.

Some commentators have also questioned Sweden's commitment to protecting prostitutes and the victims of human-trafficking after Sweden made a diplomatic complaint against Germany regarding Germany's encouraging of the use of legalized prostitutes during the 2006 World Cup. Germany had expressly taken these steps, both encouraging legal prostitution during the World Cup, and the legalization of prostitution in general, to counter the abuse of prostitutes, who still operate entirely in the black market in Sweden.[4]

Rights campaigners for prostitutes have condemned the Swedish government's approach to the issue of prostitution as demeaning and objectifying to the women involved, as they do not feel the state treats them as individuals with needs and wants but rather representations of their sex, according to SANS, a union for Swedish sex-workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden

I wouldn't even give you odds on the Swedish Model.

DOA.

How much research by Ronald Weitzer have you read? I'm asking because Melissa Farley is one end of a spectrum of researchers on prostitution, and real research on your part would involve reading from the entire spectrum.

I went to her site and looked at several of her papers. She seems to have a huge problem with post hoc ergo propter hoc, which isn't entirely her fault given the subject matter, but is her fault for not discussing. She also seems to make no distinction between pornography, trafficking, and prostitution. Most people would.

Will always be with us!

Thank you, Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.swedishmodels.net/

When droves of college-educated, stable, and clean men and women are all clamoring to work in the sex industry, then I'll believe that it is a consenting activity. I'm a teacher with a Masters degree and I'm quite certain that Kristen made much more money than me. How come I don't envy her job?

Duh!

Has it never occurred to you that people with a college education have much more access to higher paying, cleaner jobs than women who don't have a college education? Most women who work in the sex industry are not college graduates, though a few are. College graduates are a minority in the work force.

I'm a teacher with a Masters degree and I'm quite certain that Kristen made much more money than me. How come I don't envy her job?

Money is not the only factor in choice of employment. You probably make enough money to have a comfortable home, run your own car, and have some money for leisure activities and hobbies.

You probably enjoy a certain status in the community because of your job, and most likely have the added pleasure of associating with a group of like minded people at your job.

You most likely work a daytime schedule and have weekends and holidays off, but if you do not, many in your field do.

You almost certainly have job security, a pension plan, generous paid vacations, and affordable health insurance all provided via your job.

Very likely if you chose to stop teaching, you would be able to use the skills and aptitudes that you have to find some other white collar or managerial job that you found interesting or enjoyable.

But let's say that you are working as a nurse's aide, making $10 per hour or whatever the going rate is in your state. Your job involves cleaning up poo, pee, vomit, sputum, and people's bodies for 40 hours a week, not to mention often having to work mandatory overtime, weekends, overnight shifts, holidays and so on. Often you do not get a meal break, or if you do, all you can get is soda drinks and cookies from a dispenser. You drive an old clunker with threadbare tires for which you are making payments at 20% interest. You have to pay a sitter to mind your child after school.

I know that given your commitment to ethics, high moral standards, etc. you would still prefer this to working a couple of hours a week having sex with men, but are you really surprised that not all women make the same decision as you?