>
... where it's not illegal most people who do sex work obviously want to keep a low profile. ...

I'm not so sure that's true.  Sex workers tend to be a vulnerable population, which means that they can get a lot of benefit from the protections that the state provides.   I remember a story about street walkers seeking out CCTV cameras for the extra safety they provided.  (Of course that could just be more of the "warped as hell" that you're talking about.)
That said, we do have some pretty good statistical techniques for tracking stuff, even if it is mostly hidden, and prostitution is certainly common enough for those techniques to be effective.  So I think that issues with the availability and credibility of statistics about sex work is going to have more to do with politics or indifference than with people's ability to hide what they're doing.

... And that's why we can hardly have a conversation about the topic without it turning into a shitfest.  ...

How much of the "shitfest" is people disagreeing about facts, and how much of it is people being emotionally involved in the topic at hand? >


How much of the "shitfest" is people disagreeing about facts, and how much of it is people being emotionally involved in the topic at hand?

I don't know but the last time i posted something similar i basically got called a disgusting monster and a rapist by multiple users. I really didn't know if to laugh or to get pissed.  Some people are just incredibly... clueless. >

We know for certain that some sex workers are trafficked, and that some others have no other means of survival. 
We also know that trafficking will continue as long as it is profitable. 
Unless one knows a particular sex worker well enough to ascertain their wellbeing, it is difficult or impossible to know that they are not being coerced.
At what degree of probability that a sex worker is being trafficked would you consider it immoral to pay for their services, potentially contributing to the profitability of trafficking? >


At what degree of probability that a sex worker is being trafficked would you consider it immoral to pay for their services, potentially contributing to the profitability of trafficking?

A good question. I really couldn't say. 10-20%? >

So you're fine if 1 in 20 sex workers you visit has been trafficked, but not 2 in 20? Could you explain how and why you're drawing the line where you're drawing it? >

"They have no real basis to their way if thinking either, but it fits their world view, and they have no real motivation to change their thinking either, because the data is all bullshit anyways."
Just wanted to clarify all this would be the same for you, right? In fact, moreso because then you don't get what you want >

Yes exactly the same. Unless someone comes up with some convincing data >

But if the data is hard to interpret, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
I understand this might be going beyond your CMV. >

This is a very long way of trying to justify the potential of having paid for sex with a trafficked person.. >

It really is. The OP already posted a very similar CMV last month. Seems that he learned nothing from the responses he got. >

I posted this because those responses sucked and the studies posted were not that convincing and they were all made in the US >

The US is the largest population of Reddit users. If you want information specific to some other region, that’s a reasonable request but you have to actually make that request. Otherwise we’ll just assume you are also in the US.
What area do you want studies from? >

Europe, EU area >

There are actually very good ways of discovering data, including comparing testimony from workers who are usually treated well in places where sex work is legal like Amsterdam and places it is not. They interview and record information about women they find in shipping containers being moved around between countries for the purpose of sex work.
Saying we can never know the truth sounds more like you'll never bother to search. You like to see escorts but you are their paying customer, so what side of things do you think you will be witness to? You'll see what they want you to see to keep your money coming in.
I remember your last post on this topic, was there nothing even remotely convincing from that that informs you even a little bit here? >


Saying we can never know the truth sounds more like you'll never bother to search.   

I don't bother to search, but i do bother making threads like this.

I remember your last post on this topic, was there nothing even remotely convincing from that that informs you even a little bit here?

Not really, but everyone keeps giving me shit about it so I decided to make a new one >

Have you considered that you are in the wrong, and unwilling to learn? What good would research be when you feel that the responses you received in your threads were not what you want to hear? Why do you think this thread will go any differently to the last when you don't want to take any of it on board?
Would you mind also addressing the other parts of my comment which you seem to have overlooked? >

Its not about what I want to hear.
I took a look at some of the materials thrown at me in the last thread, actually I think i checked all the materials, not convinced. 
The conditions of the US sex workers dont affect to my choices, we do not have widespread crime and poverty of that scale here in Finland, and once again, only a handful of sex trafficking cases yearly.
If anyone cant come up with anything better than that, then I rest my case. >

Does the scale need to be the same as the US for there to be an issue? If you're adjusting for scale then wouldn't those handful of cases be enough to strongly weight them?
Also, those handful of cases are the ones you hear about when people get caught. There is obviously more crime than what gets solved, or heard about on the news but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Human trafficking for sex is a global situation, and is well documented and understood. Certainly not as you suggest that no one knows much reliable. 
If you want to divide up borders and talk about location specific situations I think you ought to make that clear - if you want to talk specifically about Finland then you should make that clear as well as nowhere in your post do you mention Finland or anything beyond your view.
Then it would be a matter of people being able to look at the information available from Finland and determine whether or not those news reports, studies, and other data constitute "no one knowing". 
You're getting responses from people who have read your post, not who have read your mind. >


You're getting responses from people who have read your post, not who have read your mind.

True, I should mention the location in the post. I don't want to advertise my location too much. Its a small country after all, tiny really. >

Finland is not an undiscovered land, if you want responses specific to Finland then ask about that. Also, you've again taken a tiny aspect of my comment and replied to that. There are other points worth addressing which you have not. >

Sex work by its very nature exploits and commodifies the bodies of women and children. It perpetuates abuse and sexual violence against women and children. It perpetuates rape culture and misogyny. Despite you possibly, POSSIBLY not frequenting trafficked escorts, there are infinitely more who ARE trafficked because this industry fuels that. You can keep seeing escorts, we can’t stop you, but don’t for a moment deceive yourself by thinking that what you’re doing is ethical. >


Sex work by its very nature exploits and commodifies the bodies of women and children.

Not if children aren't employed.
And it isn't exploitation or unethical commodification if the women choose to do sex work. Seems like something you should take up with them.

It perpetuates abuse and sexual violence against women and children.

Inherently? Or does that just mean it needs to be regulated?

It perpetuates rape culture and misogyny.

How? What part of a woman choosing to have sex for money perpetuates rape or misogyny?

Despite you possibly, POSSIBLY not frequenting trafficked escorts, there are infinitely more who ARE trafficked because this industry fuels that. You can keep seeing escorts, we can’t stop you, but don’t for a moment deceive yourself by thinking that what you’re doing is ethical.

So you argument is that because some women are trafficked/raped that all instances of a man and a woman agreeing to sex for money is unethical? How does that follow? >

Is your position that sex work is inherently unethical or that it's possible for it to be reformed/regulated such that it can be done ethically?
My claim isn't that there aren't unethical aspects or practices with the way sex work is currently done. It's that sex work can be/should be reformed to be more ethical.
But I'd argue that if we accept people have a right to bodily autonomy, then it should follow that people can exercise their bodily autonomy to agree to have sex for money. >

I don’t think it ever can or will be properly regulated, and therefore I think it’s inherently unethical. Again, I hate to compare it to the drug trade, but that will never be regulated, and drug wars will never end. Both industries prey on vulnerable people.
The issue lies in why do people have to do this to make money, when most of us wouldn’t want to? >

So your position is that it'll always be unethical, because it'll never (or can't be) regulated such that it isn't unethical.
My main concern is that if we accept that people have bodily autonomy, then I don't see the justification for restricting bodily autonomy by telling two consenting adults that they can't have sex for a monetary exchange. If women have the right to bodily autonomy, then it seems that should include their right to choose how they use their bodies, whether it's to make money or not.
And if women have to make money doing sex work, then what happens if we get rid of sex work? Will these women be homeless? Starving to death? It seems a bit infantilizing to tell women they don't know what's best for themselves and then force them to not do something they would've chosen to do. >

I didn’t say they don’t have a right to what they do with their bodies, just that the act itself is inherently unethical because a person’s body is not a commodity, and the consumer is wrong to treat it as such. My problem isn’t the provider, it’s the consumer.
Again, the problem is not the women (although this re-enforces what I said about the practice being steeped in misogyny). The problem is the consumer. Wherever there’s a market, people are going to fill it, but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherently ethical market. Ideally, there should be resources that allow people to survive without having to resort to sex work. Ideally if sex work still existed, prostitutes would always be treated with respect and not abused and set their own rules and boundaries that everyone would abide by.
I think we’re both not naive enough to think either is ever going to happen. Prostitution will always exist, but so will the oppression, traumatization and abuse of women and children that comes with it. >


I didn’t say they don’t have a right to what they do with their bodies, just that the act itself is inherently unethical because a person’s body is not a commodity, and the consumer is wrong to treat it as such. My problem isn’t the provider, it’s the consumer.

So it's okay for a woman to commodify her own body and offer sex for money, but the man is in the wrong for taking her up on it? Even though they both have the right to use their bodies how they want (because of bodily autonomy)?
That seems like an odd view.

Again, the problem is not the women (although this re-enforces what I said about the practice being steeped in misogyny).

If commodifying women's bodies is wrong, then why aren't women in the wrong for commodifying their own bodies?

The problem is the consumer. Wherever there’s a market, people are going to fill it, but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherently ethical market.

Sure, but idk why you're only criticizing only the consumers but not the ones offering sex in the first place.

Ideally, there should be resources that allow people to survive without having to resort to sex work.

Aren't there? There are other jobs they can work, welfare, shelters, etc. They're choosing sex work because they deem it to be a better option than the alternatives. So if we get rid of what they consider the best option (sex work), we're only leaving them with worse options (in their own estimations).

Ideally if sex work still existed, prostitutes would always be treated with respect and not abused and set their own rules and boundaries that everyone would abide by.

Sure, that would be the goal.

I think we’re both not naive enough to think either is ever going to happen. Prostitution will always exist, but so will the oppression, traumatization and abuse of women and children that comes with it.

The difference is that I respect women enough to let them make the decisions they feel is best for them. You want to control them. >

No, again, I never said people don’t have a right to do what they want with their bodies. You’re twisting my words.
The problem is that there is a market for it in the first place, and that market is driven by the consumer. Women wouldn’t be prostituting themselves if there weren’t men who wanted to have sex with them for money. Unfortunately, that market also harms them.
That was all I was saying. And the fact remains, why IS this the only way some women can make a decent living despite them having the resources you claim? Having to go into a profession that is dangerous and harmful to them in order to be able to survive, regardless if it’s their choice or not, is still a form of oppression. >


No, again, I never said people don’t have a right to do what they want with their bodies. You’re twisting my words.

So to be clear, then, you agree that sex work should be legal, that men and women should be allowed to have sex for money? You're a supporter of legalizing prostitution?

The problem is that there is a market for it in the first place, and that market is driven by the consumer.

I don't think it's inherently unethical to pay a woman to have sex with you if she consents. How is that unethical?

Women wouldn’t be prostituting themselves if there weren’t men who wanted to have sex with them for money. Unfortunately, that market also harms them.

But the women consensually engage in it. That's the problem. Bodily autonomy means that women can use their bodies how they want, including to make money. If the men wanna pay for sex, and the women wanna accept the money for sex, I don't see the moral issue.

That was all I was saying. And the fact remains, why IS this the only way some women can make a decent living despite them having the resources you claim?

Is it the only way they can make a decent living? And if it is, it's because their sex appeal is a financial asset. I don't see that as a problem. She can choose to not utilize that financial asset if she doesn't want to. Many, in fact most, choose not to.

Having to go into a profession that is dangerous and harmful to them in order to be able to survive, regardless if it’s their choice or not, is still a form of oppression.

I don't accept the premise that they have to become prostitutes to survive. There are many impoverished women who choose not to become prostitutes, and they're not dead.
And let's say you're right and women have to become prostitutes to survive. Your argument shouldn't be that men are wrong for paying women for sex or that woman are wrong for commodifying their bodies.
What you should say is wrong is the way the system is set up. Argue for easier ways for people to make money that aren't prostitution. Then, if women have other options available to them and still choose prostitution, it'll be clear that it was a free choice. It'll also allow women who didn't have other options to change careers. >

The US is a developing country >

What has that got to do with the meat of their reply? The idea that "no one knows" has no basis. Why not address their comment with more than a one line zinger? >

Im not particularly interested in us gov views on anything was my point
But you are right, that was rude, that was a very thoughtfully written comment that partially strengthened the views I already had on the issue. Thank you. I will look at the link once I have time >

If you're seeing an escort and it's illegal then it's tied to organized crime if you want to support criminal enterprise then go ahead. But at the same time most industry is gangster as hell so even if it was legal it would still primarily benefit no good god damn shady bastards. Just don't go around thinking you're doing God's work just because you're not a pimp. >

It's abusive in itself, even without the trafficking. In places where brothels are legal, here's an account of what it's like for prostituted women, by someone who used to work in one of these places.
If you're using escorts then you are part of the problem. >

If the women aren't being trafficked and it's that bad, why don't they just get another job? >

There is more then enough info on the topic, especially it the hands of government.
The fundamental problem of sex work, IMHO, is the dichotomy between taboo on sex in general and inevitability of breaching it. 
Traffiking and sex work are not essential to each other, they are connected, but both coud exist separately.
But the grand question remains: "What to do with all this mess?" >


But the grand question remains: "What to do with all this mess?"

Yeah just look at all the different legislatures there are just in the western countries, and then look at how differently those are executed in practice. For example, Thailand is the prostitution capital of the world, yet prostitution is illegal in there
It's really quite a mess. >


I'm a guy who likes to see escorts, so I like to think there is a very small chance that i would run to a trafficked person. This thought is based on the fact that there are only a handful of sex trafficking cases in my country every year. Of course, in reality this doesn't necessarily mean there are no trafficked people, just that investigating and prosecuting these cases is difficult. But for me personally, knowing this is enough to secure my peace of mind.

So this is an "ignorance is bliss" perspective. If you don't know it's happening, you're motivated to assume it's not happening (because you want the services of sex workers guilt free). 
But based on your responses here, it seems part of that is a deliberate choice in remaining ignorant by dismissing any and every challenge to your view (even going so far as to admittedly not read links to studies you've specifically asked people to cite). >

Assuming that there is no information out there is false and comes across like you're trying to let yourself off the hook for caring about sex workers' health and safety.
You might want to reach out to sex worker advocacy organizations in your city or region to ask how you can take precautions to make sure you aren't accidentally transacting with a trafficked person. They can give you tips on red flags to look for. They can recommend places to find non-coerced escorts etc. >


They have no real basis to their way if thinking either, but it fits their world view, and they have no real motivation to change their thinking either, because the data is all bullshit anyways.

I think you may have cracked the biggest problem with us as a species.  In the absence of conclusive proof, we tend to chose the answer that we prefer, not the answer that has the strongest supporting evidence.
Of course this also applies to me and you.  We're also humans.

For example, I'm a guy who likes to see escorts, so I like to think there is a very small chance that i would run to a trafficked person.

of course.  Otherwise you would feel bad.  the data is all bullshit choose your own reality.
but there is only 1 reality.  Either you are wrong or you are not wrong.  And the people who ay coercion is common are either wrong or not wrong.  But you both cannot be right. 
how to know?  You could ask a couple of questions to every escort you see.  Log their answers, and then you'd have data.  And that data would be pretty decent data depending on how many escorts you see.  if you saw 50 in a year, that's about 1 once a week, that would be pretty good data.  Then you would know somethings pretty reliable about sex work.  
probably other people who study it also know reliable things.  not everything, obviously and no 1 study would be perfect.  But if lots of people independently studied it and then compared notes...  And they were are away of the limitations of their studies... then the community at large would know something.
If you follow the rules of science, you won't every learn for SURE who is right, but you'll learn who is probably right.
but why would you bother with all that.  You already feel good.  You have no incentive to seek out the truth, you already have the belief that you want. >


but why would you bother with all that.  You already feel good.  You have no incentive to seek out the truth, you already have the belief that you want.

I think that interviewing the escorts as a customer wouldn't work