No, my analogy is a logical extension of your formula where decriminalizing johns leads to increased demand which leads to increased crime. The point of my analogy is that with most industries, when industry expansion brings out increase in crime, we expand law enforcement. That’s called growth. Why should the sex…

You can create a legal framework protecting consensual, non-exploitative money-for-sex transactions while also enforcing laws against sex trafficking. Blaming the prostitute or john in a consensual money-for-sex transaction for the fact that some sleazy club owner somewhere is trafficking more women doesn’t logically…

Because the open letter — and you — are conflating those things. You’re also conflating those things when you say elsewhere (multiple times) that decriminalizing johns “causes” increased human trafficking. This is just a weird claim. You might as well argue that decriminalizing grocery stories increases crime, since…

Near as I can tell the only thing the data shows is that when there’s a local expansion of the sex industry but no associated expansion of local law enforcement, then there will be an increase of human trafficking to that location. So it goes with all industries.

“This is not an industry built on consensual participation.” Except in the many, many situations where it absolutely is precisely that. If the goal is to get sex workers out of abusive situations and into safely and fairly regulated situations, then the solution can’t possibly be to invest in the black market, as…

Of course decriminalizing the purchasing of sex tends to go hand in hand with an industry expansion, and of course that would tend to entail increased human trafficking. This implies that there’s a need to be better enforce laws against human trafficking. It does not imply that the sex industry ought to be forced to…

I just want to be clear about something. You believe that all prostitutes are trafficked slaves who need you to rescue them — is that about right?

The data is definitely not clear on that. Like the change.org letter, you’re totally cherry-picking the data which strikes your fancy. You’re also ignoring the more obvious point that criminalizing the purchase of sex either wipes out the sex industry or pushes it underground.

“It is simply opposed to decriminalizing pimps and brothels and the purchasing of sex.”

Isn’t decriminalizing sex work but keeping the criminal status of johns kind of like saying to a convenient store owner that they can keep their store, but it’s illegal for anyone to enter it?

Again, this isn’t that complicated. Criminalizing the purchasing of sex forces the profession underground.

The letter’s reference to the Nordic model is buried away in a footnote. If there’s some actual national system which the letter is advocating as a model for the whole world, the letter does not say so. Instead it says that the purchasing of sex should remain criminal. So, no more throwing sex workers in jail — that’s…

What’s with this disingenuous way you keep conflating purchasers of sex (johns) with pimps and human traffickers? Why do you keep doing that? Is it on purpose?

Let’s be clear that “criminalizing pimps” means moving prostitution out of the black market and into the legal and regulated sphere. And that’s great — that should be supported. This is Jezebel, so I don’t think you’re going to find any “pimp rights” advocates here! But criminalizing johns clearly yanks the whole…

What on earth are you talking about? The change.org letter absolutely and explicitly opposes decriminalization of prostitution.

What percentage of prostitutes agree with you that their profession ought to remain illegal?

I agree with your final paragraph, actually. Time to move on from each other.

I’ll just say there’s an important distinction between saying that someone who felt they were being coerced was not in fact being coerced, and calling someone a liar. You read Foucault ever? People can respond to an internalized sense that they’re being coercion that isn’t in fact reflected in the external situation.

I’m rereading the paragraphs you block-quote from the article really carefully. And I’m just not seeing where Kipnis “all but outright calls the student a liar.” Kipnis highlights the story as an example of a campus climate where “melodrama” (sleazy prof, groping — but no actual rape) is blown up into a series of…

Actually, Sulkowicz was likely involved in the vigilante posting of Nungesser’s name all over the walls of Columbia’s Butler Library last year. The posters said “this man is a rapist and he’s still on campus” or something. Look it up. It’s not proven Sulkowicz was the person who put those posters up, but this was how…