Whatever, I was just going for rhetorical effect. And I don’t see how anyone even remotely familiar with the sex trade on a global scale, which necessarily includes Eastern Europe, East Asia, Latin America, American cities’ various sleazy “skid rows” and faux massage parlors and the like, the online sex industry, etc,…

What are you comparing it to? Whatever neovictorian middle American suburb you hail from? Yeah, I’m sure Amsterdam was quite shocking for you.

Uh yes I think it’s been a success? Netherlands as bastion of tolerance and all that?

The Dutch model seems pretty good. Regulation of legal prostitution gives people who want to be sex workers or johns in a consensual context the opportunity to do so; vigorous enforcement of antitrafficking laws limits trafficking to an impressive extent given the role Amsterdam plays as the sex industry hub of…

The point of my analogy is that with most industries, when industry expansion brings about an increase in crime (as usually happens), we expand law enforcement. That’s called growth. Why should the sex industry be any different?

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.