If it bothers you that men are paying more money for a soccer game ticket than to rent the reproductive organs of a woman for sexual use, why blame the Vatican spokesman who did not create that state of affairs instead of the pimps, traffickers, and prostitute-using men who did?

Also, some facts:

- Of an estimated 400,000 sex workers in Germany only 100 joined the service union ver.di and only 300-600 people listed their jobs as prostitute. If as much as a paltry 1% joined the union it would amount to 4,000 unionized sex workers instead of an infinitesimally small 100 representing .00025% of sex workers in Germany.

- The majority of prostitutes in Germany are not from Germany (60% to 80% by most estimates), they are mostly from Eastern Europe and Latin America. Germany is one of the world's biggest destinations for trafficking victims and legalization has grown those numbers while reducing the number of police raids intended to find victims.

- Despite legalization, 59% of German sex workers interviewed did not think legalization made them safer from rape and physical assault.

Germany Rethinking Legalized Prostitution
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14566682.htm

"Stopping human trafficking was one of the reasons that Germany legalized prostitution. The logic was that by legitimizing the trade, it would become safer and healthier.

But a United Nations report on human trafficking released last month still rated Germany "very high" as a destination for women forced into sex work, and some of those who supported legalization are reconsidering.

'I was with my party, the Greens, when we pushed for legalization,' said Hiltrud Breyer, a German member of the European Parliament. 'We really believed it would bring the profession out of the shadows and improve lives. I'm rethinking that position.'"

This is not news that would lead a feminist to break out the bubbly on prostitution legalization’s success at stopping sexual slavery.

Gonna have to disagree with Vanessa on this one, if the point of the post is that Sex WORK is a good thing but Sex SLAVERY is bad.

Despite the persistent myth that prostitutes are fulfilled women living out the American (German?) dream, most prostitutes hate their work and only do it because circumstances pretty much force them to. It's basically sex slavery, only the "slavery" part of it is imposed by poverty, lack of education and opportunities, and many other social conditions.

Furthermore, it's a basic fact that legalized prostitution actually ENCOURAGES sex slavery, basically because it's near impossible to tell if the women in the brothel actually want to be there or not. IF they say they want to be there, do you believe them? Or do you check to make absolutely sure they don't have a kid being held hostage somewhere? Or that they've been drugged? Or threatened? Over and over again we see that countries that legalize prostitution have the highest incidence of sex slavery. So, no, you really CAN'T separate the two.

No matter how much we hate the Vatican. ;)

"Despite the persistent myth that prostitutes are fulfilled women living out the American (German?) dream, most prostitutes hate their work and only do it because circumstances pretty much force them to."

Sounds like basically any type of employment there is. Most people I know hat their work and only do it because circumstances force them too.

That's stupid, TT.

Many people like or even love their jobs. Among those who don't, they at least don't have to worry that they'll be raped or assaulted while working, or contract any number of STDs or get pregnant. These are things that happen in staggering numbers to prostitutes. Don't pretend that a white-collar job available to a young woman granted with an education is comparable to fucking 30 strangers a night while worrying that one of them might rape/kidnap/murder you.

TT, most people recognize that prostitution is a particularly degrading type of work; being forced into such work by circumstances is a little more compelling than say, being forced to work at McDonalds by circumstances.

As always, more articulate AND more humorous than I, angryleft. ;)

And as much as I love a good rant, I can't get too worked up about the Vatican being offended that a soccer ticket costs more than a woman's "services". To be honest, that offends ME, too. Maybe I'll have to turn in my feminist card? :(

Completedly flattered EJ! :)

Seriously though, this is an interesting topic. It seems (sadly) as though sex trafficking will always exist as long as the larger issue of massive global inequalities combined with pure human greed exists. Why are such a small percentage of prostitutes unionized if it's legal? Perhaps one possibility would be to illegalize prostitute for women who aren't born in Germany. Not that that would solve all the problems, but it seem as if it would deal with a great number of them.

Anytime, AL. :)

The problem is, it's hard enough to get the government to regulate businesses that people AREN'T ashamed to be seen visiting. It's hard to imagine OSHA-certified brothels popping up all over the country anytime soon.

I'm aware that a few counties in Nevada have made a nice go of it, offering safe working conditions for the girls, along with STD screening of the men and bouncers to make certain the men don't slap the girls around. That said, men who are 1) clean, 2) nonviolent, and 3) unashamed of being seen entering a known house of prostitution probably aren't the highest proportion of most customers.

Some men are completely ignorant and irresponsible about sex, anyway - a study recently confirmed that (in some areas anyway) condoms distributed freely to sex workers weren't helping to stem the tide of STDs because the men had decided to "pay extra" for unprotected sex. I see this as relevant because if we can't get the clients to agree to safe sex for their OWN protection, I can't see them banding together to make the situation safer for the lady involved.

I would honestly rather find a way to gainfully employ all the prostitutes in something less dangerous and more life-affirming, but aren't I a dreamer?

You may say that you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one.

Did anyone see the recent "Frontline" special on human trafficking?

Horrifying, and, as I recall, Germany was mentioned not just as an offender, but in terms of the numbers, the WORSE offender in all of Europe!

I don't agree with the Vatican on much of anything, but on this one they are dead right. The Germans are shipping in women from other countries to meet the anticipated demand--no doubt there is human trafficking involved!

I'd say you've got the title of this thread wrong, Vanessa.

I'd say it should read -

"Pimps and men who pay for sex and degrade prostituted women"

I'm glad the Vatican is speaking out against this situation. They do precious little else for women.

Vanessa,

Are you serious? Do you really think that prostitution. legal or not, is anything less than reducing women to sex objects?

And pay attention to what the Archbishop said. THE PROFESSION is a loss of a women's dignity. The judgement is on the sin, not the sinner.

Vanessa, you have derailed. Women who sell their bodies for sex are in trouble and need help. They violate themselves for money and leave themselves wide open to the opportunity of rape, violence or even murder.

Come on, if you are serious about defending a women's rights, then it has to begin with keep them out of harm's way.

I have to agree that I'm not very comfortable with prostitution. Feminism is, to me, about women becoming MORE than their bodies. That's why we deserve birth control - we should be able to decide when we get pregnant. That's why we fight for equal work conditions - we shouldn't have to "marry rich" to be able to live the life we want.

Didn't we fight for years to prove to society that we're worth more than the sum of our vaginas? And isn't prostitution the complete opposite of that? Prostitution says that the only thing worthwhile about a woman is sex - and that she can be had lock, stock, and barrel for a small monetary price. To quote a silly but applicable movie - Robin Hood: Men in Tights - it's like when Maid Marian says she will submit to marital rape but that her husband will "never have my heart, my mind, or my soul" and he smirks and says "I can respect that." - once he has control of her vagina, he doesn't want or need anything else from her. He owns her sexually and she has no worth outside of her vagina.

Okay, so it's a silly movie, but my point remains. We wanted women to not have to be subject to their husbands sexual whims in exchange for money to live. So why should women be subjected to the sexual whims of complete strangers in exchange for money to live???

Maybe there was a time when feminism embraced prostitution - in our naivete we thought that women should be able to command a price for her body if that was what she truly wanted. Yet circumstances have shown us that very few prostitutes actually took that road because they wanted to - they did it because circumstances forced them to. Rather than "fight the good fight" for more destitute women to be able to sell their bodies for basic food and health care, wouldn't it be BETTER to fight towards fixing the societal conditions that force these women into prostitution? Shouldn't we focus on better health care, food provision, educational and workplace opportunites? Should the daughters of prostitutes become prostitutes themselves in turn because they had no other chances or choices? And we should be proud of this cycle of sexual oppresion?

Maybe I'm just too aware of my soap-box, but I can't get on board with a mentality that says that a system which forces women to sell their bodies is something good and worth defending.

Prostitution is hardly some kind of grand scheme which men use to "exploit wymmyn." Prostitution actually exploits men by using their sex drive to extort money from them. In fact, prostitution is nothing but the heterosexual relationship reduced to its fundamental economic unit -- the mutually beneficial exchange of sex for money.

You didn't tell us you were a romantic, Contra. ;)

Yes. I enjoy moonlight dinners and sodomy. It's a wonderful life.

Have you noticed that only the antifeminists use the "wymmyn" spelling?

Prostitution "extorts" money from men? And here I thought that most sex customers went LOOKING for the workers. Please.

It's ridiculous to state that something as degrading as prostitution is really in fact a burden on the men who get back in their warm cars and drive home to sleep in their warm beds while the lady is forced to stand out in the cold, desperately hoping to turn a few more tricks that night in order to afford food the next day. Welcome to reality, Contra.

It is outrageous that people pay money for the services of those who earn a livelihood selling their body. These workers produce nothing useful, and end up spent, frequently crippled by the harsh life they lead. I refer, of course, to the soccer players.

Visit the Schapira Blog, What we know so far ...

... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

I have been reading alot on the sex trade recently and the fact is, even where prositution is legal, many of those workers are trafficked and there against their will. some are kept there with the use of threats while others are kept there by brute force. While I rarely agree with the vatican, I do believe their condemnation of prostitution is right on target.

i also want to point out that not all feminists disagree with sex work and that Vanessa is completely entitled to her opinion on the matter. I tend to draw the line at prostitution but i would also say that *most* of the time women dont choose any kind of sex work without extenuating circumstances. However, some women do and that is ok by me. I think its also degrading to women to always paint them as victims who never have a choice, and while that is true much of the time (esp concerning sex work) its not always the case and as feminists its important to remember that.

Damn Catholic Church speaking out against prostitution!

What will these diabolical madmen think of next?

You know what they say about opinions being like bellybuttons in that everyone has one, but unlike bellybuttons not all opinions are created equally and deserve equal merit.

"That's just like...your opinion...maaaaaaaaannnn"

-The Dude (abides)

EJ, you're probably right that extort is a bad word, but, in ideal it is essentially correct. Prostitutes exploit man's natural desire for sex in the same way that capitalists who own large reserves of drinking water exploit humans' natural desire for water. I'm not saying men should be given free access to womens' bodies, but that prostitution fulfills a need in society. Looking at it from a reality-based perspective, men have a natural desire for sex, while women have a natural antipathy towards heterosexual sex--both being based on the relative abundance and scarcity of the respective gametes. High class prostitution is an insanely high paying and lucrative business (200-300 USD an hour, about). Not all prostitutes are streetwalkers, though I imagine most of them are. The streetwalkers' poverty of lifestyle is attributable more to their circumstances in life, rather than the institution of prostitution itself, as is evidenced by the luxury of high-end prostitutes.

Looking at it from a reality-based perspective, men have a natural desire for sex, while women have a natural antipathy towards heterosexual sex

Reality-based perspective? How about a ton of fresh, steaming, sexist bullshit. There is nothing of truth to what you said, CF. Men don't naturally need sex. Women don't naturally display antipathy towards it. Our culture attempts to impart these attitudes to us in order to justify a system where women's only value is their sexuality and reprodutive function, and men's only value is their cash. However, humans are humans. Some will seek it out, some won't. Some like different things in sex than others. There's a wide variety of sexuality, and it isn't broken down by gender lines, no matter how hard we try to reinforce that falsehood. (And prostitution is one way to reinforce that system.)

Oh, and would you like to provide us with stats to back up your ideas about "the luxury of high-end prostitutes?" Such as their long-term earnings, continuous health care coverage, retirement accounts, etc.? Cause if you can't, your point means very, very little.

i am pretty sure BOTH sexes have a "natural desire" for sex. neither one of them should use that desire as an excuse to exploit anyone. the idea that women have a natural antipathy towards heterosexual sex is the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a long time. honestly who told you that?

Where do male prostitutes fit into this debate?

i would say they fit in the same place considering its mostly men who visit male prostitutes. also, there are FAR less male than female prostitutes and they arent trafficked to even close a degree as females. i for one didnt see a single male prostitute in amsterdam the two times i was there. its kinda a dumb question moderate considering its no where near as large a problem as female prostitutes.

Jenna, I don't think it's sexist at all, nor even anti-feminist. Male sexual availability is abundant, while the inverse is true for females. This is simply the stating of a fact: males will tend to have sex with a female even if he doesn't find her attractive, or a potential long-term mate. This is radically different from the female tendency of mating mainly with mates of a higher social standing. If anything, females are blessed by nature by this.

I don't have any stats regarding high-end prostitutes, nor have I searched them out, but common sense forces me to believe that someone who is making atleast a few hundred dollars a day is not in a bad financial situation. Furthermore, making such amounts of money provides an opportunity to invest in the future and for (an early?) retirement. High-end prostitutes are in FAR better financial shape than people working for Walmart or McDonalds, yet I hear no calls to criminalize such jobs.

Great question, Raging Moderate. I don't think there's any outrage over male prostitutes because it's common knowledge that males naturally enjoy sex. Anti-prostitution is mainly a feminist issue and motivated by the biases of its ideologues/constituency--females.

are you reading ANYTHING i write contra bc for some reason you ignore posters who completely obliterate your ludicrous arguements.
how do you know that the reason women dont have as much no strings attached sex is bc of the societal expectations of how a woman should behave sexually?
furthermore, anti prostitution is NOT mainly a feminist issue, in fact in many respects its one place where conservatives and feminists get along. wasnt the posting originally about the church being anti prostitution. not exactly a well known feminist entity.
there is little outrage over male prostitutes BECAUSE as i said before the number they are FAR less abundant and are generally not victims of the sex trade and human trafficking. god, you are not the smartest person are you?

Contra Fascism: You avoid analyzation in favor of tired propaganda based on stereotype.

1. Males do not naturally desire sex more than women. People desire sex, some more than others, it's true, but it isn't a natural divide between men and women. Rather, it's a divide created by culture, and a divide that's slowly being reversed.

2. Women will and do enact the same sexual behaviors as men when they have the option, or when they can avoid notice. True, our culture looks down on women who have large numbers of partners, and tends to judge them severely, but, again, that judgement is slowly being revised. And plenty of women will sleep with men to whom they aren't desparatly attracted or want as a mate. Happens all the time.

3. Your analysis completely avoids homosexuality, bi-sexuality, kink lifestyles, and other forms of sexual behavior that depart from the good-ole dick-n-vagina. This is a grave error.

4. So, you assume that drug dealers or hit men also, as a rule, have an excellent financial future? Dude. Think for a second.

5. Walmart and mcdonalds are red herrings. They have no bearing on the discussion. Might as well bring up child labor. But, if ya wanna look at prostitution vs. menial labor, you aren't very likely to contract an STD, get raped, get beaten, get killed, or be controlled by a man who takes all your money so that you'll remain in his stable when you're working at McD's or MallWart.

5. It isn't "common knowledge" that men naturally enjoy sex (which, of course, alludes that women don't). It's a cultural falsehood. And we empathize with male prostitiutes. They tend to be subject to the same pressures and classed in the same light as women (mostly because the majority of male prostitutes service other males, and thus serve as females in a cultural sense). It isn't healthy in our culture for either sex to perform this function. That's not to say it couldn't be. If the financial inequities were resolved and if class/gender/race/sexuality prejudices didn't exist, prostitution might be an acceptable alternative. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with joyously sharing your body with another person. There is something wrong about the inequality of prostitution as it exists in our society.

That isn't bias, it's not buying into the rather lame and stilted lies of the mainstream. You should try it some time

Unfortunately I have to get to work, so I have not read all the posts here. Hope to later. But, I am confused by the article. It seems the pope, who I am not all hot on, BTW, actually made some decent points, at least in the parts that were quoted, and I did not see the "Bad ho. Sinful." part. Seems the comments that prostitution degrades the dignity of the prostitute and the sheer numbers of new ones for the cup and the sex slavery issue...those are all good points that make sense to me as a woman and as a feminist. Since when did sex postitve become defined to mean the commodification of sex positive. I know we want to empower all women, I guess I just wish some of that empowerment had more to do w/ helping women get out of prostitution rather than buckling beneath the status quo and then pretending sex work is a desirable profession, say, for YOUR daughter or mom.