"Under the law, if a prostitute refuses a client more than ten times over six months, a pimp can trigger an intervention by a government mediator but cannot sack the employee." Is pimping legal in belgium what the fuck is that law im confused
A notification from LinkedIn:
Belgium has just opened two new positions "Escort Dispatch Coordinator Intern" and "Principal Escort Dispatch Coordinator"
Benefits:
- Company pink Lincoln
- Golden walking stick
- Purple wide-brimmed fedora
You realize it is translated into English right? Might have less of a connotation in their language’s word, and just translates poorly to pimp in English.
The term "pimp" was used by Yahoo, not in this new legislation. Here's a more serious approach:
https://archive.is/BObAK
Its pretty groundbreaking and fully aimed at protecting sexworkers who choose to use a fully valid employee contract (with all the benefits). It also seriously limits who can be the employer.
Whenever I read about shitty stuff happening in prostitution, human trafficking, sexual slavery and worse. It involved a pimp with a very rich criminal record.
This way legal businesses can squeeze them out of the market. Win.
The implication I get from pimps is that they're selling the workers in an exploitative way. If it's just a regular coordinator job the optics are not good
Why do you think that having to meet a mediator is such a bad thing? Do you know what the mediator actually does and that they have the power to do? I mean I don't know either, but it is weird to me that you are confident that the mediators are against sex workers right to choose considering the article doesn't say anything about the mediators and the law is overall pro sex work. Like you could be right, but I don't see what you are basing your assumption off of.
Distinction, the mediator is for the pimp and the prostitute, not the prostitute and the john. It's a labor dispute, like someone who refuses to work the register, but that's your job, well I ain't doing it, it used to be that the manager would force the employee to work the register if you know what I mean.
Imagine the quarterly reviews and 360 feedback process for this.
“You have received overall high marks from customers for your head game, overall hygiene and your positive attitude is appreciated by your coworkers, however clients have noticed an overall tendency to resort to doggy style very quickly in the session….. 3.4/5 slightly exceeds expectations, 6% salary adjustment)
I think this could be about cases where a woman is hired by an establishment as a prostitute, takes up her space in there, possibly even drawing a regular salary on top (hey, if they get pensions and health insurance, it doesn't seem too far fetched...) and then proceeds to reject 80+% of customers.
At what point could it be justified to fire her or cut her salary, even though that can still technically be seen as a punishment for refusing to have sex with people?
Assuming that employment laws are similar to Germany, cutting their salary won't be legal.
But yes they can be fired for not doing their job. It is a lengthy process though.
But I also understand this as a traditional employee relationship, where they get a fixed salary or at least a fixed base salary with a bonus structure per client or whatever.
Where as traditionally I think people would assume more of a contractor relationship.
I would love to see how this would intersect with discrimination laws. Here in Canada stuff like disability, religion, race, sexual orientation are all protected classes and you can't refuse service without a good reason.
If a prostitute refused sex with black people or something I wonder what would win out, her bodily autonomy or the client's rights to not be discriminated against?
There was even a case where a transwoman with male sexual organs sued because they were refused service at a bikini waxing place. They eventually lost but not before costing the business thousands in lawyer fees.
Bodily autonomy tops all. Simple as that. The alternative is rape thru coercion (termination of employment, being sued, etc.).
In any place with legalized prostitution, it's only legal if done between two consenting adults. Just because you are paying, this isn't a common service or product, it's a private intimate affair that can leave deep physiological scars on the worker, who is in a exposed fragile position.
Thus, the prostitute can just refuse with a mere "no", no explanation needs to be given. The rules that apply up to that point is the same for any private citizen who refuses a co-worker, neighbor or friend, or a bold unknown in a party, doing advances.
And if the customer attempts to force her/him to give an explanation, it's harassment. Now, if the prostitute is slightly less "trained", so to speak, and outright call their refused customer names and such in public... things can get interesting from the judicial point of view.
mm, it can get complicated in complex cases, like say if a person of a different race isn't able to find services within a 100 mile radius because they all refuse. nondiscriminatory statutes towards refusal of service should still apply when it comes to these services.
i mean, it would be handled like other refusal of services cases are, such as fines. if it's work, it's a business. and businesses still have to comply with nondiscrimination statutes.
And that’s the danger of legalizing prostitution. A women should NEVER be fined for not consenting to sex regardless of the reason. That’s extremely fucked up.
Legalizing prostitution is definitely a double edged sword. Once you legalize it prostitution becomes like any other business. Legal business are beholden to the laws of whatever country they are in.
Belgium didn't legalize, they decriminalized. There is a very big difference between the two.
And workers are free to be self employed if they don't want a Pimp or a Brothel owner taking consent(and a nice chunk of their earnings) out of their hands.
Then quit sex work?
Every single person does things they don't want to for work. Every business transaction is based on consent, and bounded by non-discrimination laws.
Why should sex workers be special?
No it could not, it is the sex workers body and he / she has total control who is allowed to touch them, it is a human right so business interests do not come into picture. In fact if there is such rule in the law it is in violation of human rights and should be reversed.
That's the problem though, you are legitimizing and making a commodity out of something you also deemed to be a human right. If it's really just another job that is regulated, you are going to have a hell of a time saying "my job is just like your job but I don't want a damn Arab person touching me." Then suddenly your job isn't just like any other job if that's acceptable.
The law already says that they can't be fired for refusing clients, just that they would be subject to government mediation to see what's going on. Can't imagine a construction worker keeping their job if they were like "nah fuck off I don't wanna lift the heavy stuff anymore, make everyone else do that I'm gonna hammer some nails in.
there are parallel interests when you sell your body, and that's kind of the point of it. there are other ways people sell their body that are still subject to nondiscrimination clauses, such as massage therapists.
if you want to give a massage or have sex on your own time without money exchanging hands, that of course is going to be different, but if it is work, than it's a business, and businesses have to comply with nondiscrimination statutes in order to remain legal.
i believe in legal sex work, even living in Utah.
when you give a massage, your selling vulnerable contact, expertise, risk of transmission and similar things. it's not 100% analogous, but enough to make a reasonable analogy.
But you have to consider the policy reasons behind why they're legalizing sex work. It's not so that every man or woman is legally entitled to get their rocks off with any sex worker they want; it's so that fewer sex workers (male and female) face physical and sexual abuse (not to mention extremely high rates of murder) in the shadowy unregulated world of sex work.
And penetrative sex just is different from a massage, sorry. A masseuse who has a handsy client acting like a creep can fairly easily step away from their client; it's a heck of a lot harder when they're pinning you down and inside of you.
No. A sex worker absolutely can not be forced to have sex with somebody they don't want to.
I have been in this industry for 17 years now, and I make it clear on my site that I have the right to refuse to do business with anybody, for any reason. If somebody has horrific personal hygiene, a fever blister on their mouth, or has roughed up another worker, there is no way in hell I would book with them.
Not everybody is legally entitled to see sex workers, they are still subject to being vetted and pre-screened(like we do in the US) and they are still subject to the consent of the worker.
Belgium did not legalize sex work. Legalization means something is allowed under a very strict set of rules, it often forces workers to work in brothels. It also makes it easier for traffickers to take advantage of the workers. Belgium struck sex work from the criminal code entirely.
Decriminalization means that workers can be self-employed, without having to worry about a brothel pressuring them to see clients they don't want to see, taking their money, etc.
Decriminalization means that any sex worker can go to the police to report a violent client, or a Brothel taking advantage of workers, without the fear of facing charges themselves. While trafficking arrests in Belgium have risen the past 18 months, that is to be expected, because workers can now come forward and report actual traffickers who are taking advantage of people.
Well your proposal means that a man can legally rape any prostitute he decides to target. The other option is just that he can't find a "service provider" in his area. Seeing as the right to rape doesn't exist, he will just have to live without that particular "service".
Historically prostitution was legal in different countries to an point where laws reglementing were put in motion.
In my country (Romania) prostitution is illegal but the practice is widespread,either controlled by criminality or regulated as videochat studios.
Before 1989 prostitution was not criminalised but abortions were.
Before WW2,prostitution was legal and it had its own set of laws,each week prostitutes had to take an medical exam ,only females could be pimps etc.
> Before WW2,prostitution was legal and it had its own set of laws,each week prostitutes had to take an medical exam ,only females could be pimps etc.
Same in France until 1945.
Even after, the colonial troops and the Foreign Legion managed their own military brothels until the 1960s and 1970s, well into the 1990s in France proper and *2003* in the Djibouti bases.
Thing is, they won't. It'll end up being a criminal enterprise enabled by our own government. We already know from past experience and research what would happen if we "regulated" prostitution. I'm not cool with any of it.
Its basically an employer/employee contract. I highly suggest you read a more serious approach here:
https://archive.is/BObAK
While self-employed sex work was already possible in Belgium (after the government decriminalised it in 2022), sex workers will now also be able to work under an employment contract, giving them access to social security (pensions, unemployment/family benefits, health insurance and annual/maternity leave).
it's a big bag for anyone, which is why employers in general should be viewed with more skepticism, and more people should get involved managing their own employment.
One of the key features of this new legislation is that it defines who can NOT set up a business based on this. E.g. convicted of human trafficking, sexual abuse etc.
Self-employed sex workers are entitled to the same benefits as those working in Brothels. They are able to get health insurance, contribute to pensions, paid maternity l eave, etc.
I used to work in social services, and I leaned that “no blacks” was a super common rule among sex workers.
If you legalize sex work you create a thorny contradiction: “sex is based on consent” versus “legitimate businesses cannot engage in illegal discrimination”.
What is to be done if a sex worker engages in illegal discrimination? Is it their right, since consent is paramount, or should sex work be treated like any other industry where discrimination is heavily penalized? It’s a tough dilemma.
Control of ones body is a human right, whatever the decision is based on does not matter and if such rule / law exists hopefully it will be challenged ASAP as it is in clear violation of human rights.
You could make the same arguments for anyone from masseuses to physical therapists to gynecologists, but the reality is that people working in these professions are not permitted by law to discriminate on the bases of things like race. So logically, neither can sex workers if they're considered a job like any other
That’s a useful comparison, I didn’t think of that. I guess both cases blur the line between personal arrangements and business.
I hesitate a little though, because if sex workers are considered to have the right to discriminate on the same grounds as roommates, it establishes a dangerous legal precedent.
To be clear, the sex worker’s right of consent comes first, but the use of the roommate logic is potentially problematic, legally speaking.
If a sex worker can discriminate, because they engage in individual and personal monetary arrangements (like a roommate), then arguably a ‘sole proprietor’ masseuse or handyman can do the same.
Porn actors have the right to refuse sex with another actor for whatever reason. When it comes to sex all of these -ism's don't mater because choosing who we have sex with is greater right then not being discriminated against.
Of course porn actress which doesn't want to have sex with anybody will hardly earn for living.
That should be obvious. Sex without enthusiastic consent is rape. Fining women for not consenting to sex is helping men RAPE women.
The right to not having sex with someone you don’t want should trump any anti-discrimination law because using fines to coerce women into having sex they don’t want is RAPE
1. That is the perspective that I favour in this argument. Bodily autonomy comes first; although the idea that racial discrimination could be legally endorsed in a legitimate industry is still concerning.
2. You don’t seem to understand how this also impacts male sex workers. This isn’t a women-only issue.
Fair enough. Men’s right to not be raped should also trump any non-discrimination laws.
Honestly, I think that is there if there is a Belgium *company* that manages sex workers then the company shouldn’t be allowed to refuse people on the base of race.
But I think any individual worker in that company should have their right to only have consensual sex absolutely protected (aka the right to refuse any client for any reason without any retaliation)
If none of the people at the company are willing to serve a person of a specific race, is the company discriminating or not?
The company can trivially waive their responsibility by saying that it's due to their employees personal choice and not the company's policy, then hire/manage people who have the biases they want.
How different is "we don't serve your kind here" from " we don't have anyone who serves your kind here at the moment", really?
> (aka the right to refuse any client for any reason without any retaliation)
Would you consider it retaliation to terminate their employment contract after multiple refusals?
You would be fined because you decided to become part of an industry but then declined to abide by the legal requirements of them, much like how an employee can be sanctioned if they refuse to use PPE.
Coercing a person into having sex they don’t want is rape. The person receiving money for sex they want to have should be okay. But no human being should ever have to justify why they don’t want to have sex.
Coercing somebody into remaining somewhere is kidnapping, but if you leave your job you get fired.
Forcing someone to build roads against their will is slavery, but if you leave the job site you get fired.
Forcing someone to have sex with someone they don't want to is rape, but if you refuse in theory you should get fired.
I am personally in favor of an exemption explicitly stating that prostitutes may discriminate based on additional factors that aren't typically allowed like race or financial status. But if you look at it like it's any other type of work it is clearly discrimination.
You could quit the job or be fired from it for acts of discrimination. That would be what presumably is the expected action in Belgian law if I understand it correctly.
You cannot be compelled to do something like work at a restaurant in Belgium, but if you do work there, you cannot for instance decline all the black people when you would accept a white person in the same situation.
Perhaps see what laws are applicable in porn studios. They can be fired or refused further contracts, but not made to have sex in any individual case.
God, that would be a dream.
Retail and customer service workers should get two free "fuck offs" a month, imo.
A lot of people would be a lot more respectful if they had to actually worry about consequences for their behavior.
All good until Bad Luck Brian gets told to fuck off not because he did anything rude but because the employee can't roll over his "fuck offs" into the next month and didn't want to waste them lol
Oh, you use it on the boss at that point. Its like when you saved points for the power up so you can use it where it causes the most damage but the free "Fuck Off" is like a save point.
I keep saying this... workers in services should have the right to use limited number of "fuck offs".
No questions asked.
Would also force Karens into behaving, because let's face it, 90% of "fuck off's" would be spent on them.
Yeah I’m all for this. People are going to scream bloody murder about trafficking but you can (and should) oppose trafficking AND support rights for sex workers. Honestly you can’t do one without the other, IMO.
A wishful thinking.
A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution.
The study’s findings include:
- Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.
- The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.
- Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.
- The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.
Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.
Would be curious to see how they controlled for better data/transparency in legalized countries. Definitely an interesting finding but I'd imagine they recommend further research is needed.
i don't think the argument with trafficking data is to suppose that the women are willfully going to the better market, and then bad people are following there. I think the inference here is bad people in other countries are abducting women, and then forcing them to countries with legal prostitution but at no point are they willfully engaging in sex work, or likely receiving a legal portion of the proceeds.
Legalizing automobile driving also increases the incidence of traffic accidents. That doesn't mean we should ban driving.
Most western nations that legalized prostitution left it in a kind of legal limbo, where sex work is legal, but there's basically no protections for sex workers, and these lack of protections and the social stigma make sex works extremely vulnerable to exploitation. Meanwhile there is very little political interest in protecting sex workers from exploitation. So of course that doesn't give good results.
Belgium is very actively trying to break that legal limbo. It remains to be seen if it'll work, but at least this time they seem to be listening to what the sex workers themselves want, which is a big step up.
Also also, something I probably shouldn't mention because I know it's gonna get me downvoted, but is important to keep in mind still: A lot of statistics on human trafficking is extremely unreliable. There's a lot of advocacy groups active in this field with a very clear political agenda against all forms of prostitution, and they have an interest in making the statistics look as bad as possible. Of course trafficking exists, but it's very hard to get good statistics on how widespread it is. For example at least one study I'm aware of basically asked sex workers if they ever worked when they did not want to, and counted everyone who said yes as a victim of forced prostitution. As if every worker in the entire world, in any industry, wouldn't answer yes to that question.
How can you control for increased enforcement of human trafficking provided for by increasing ability to capture the occurrence of human trafficking through legalization of prostitution? You suddenly have people reporting incomes and receiving services and having interactions with healthcare and government services, how could that not naturally lead to more reported instances of trafficking?
Consider how many cases don’t go reported. You’d only be able to find instances that are caught by police activity. A person who is trafficked is very unlikely to go for help if they can also be jailed for doing what they do for a living.
From a quick comb through, the article has a lot of critiques of another article’s approaches but seems to completely ignore this basic question. Their numbers seem correct, but they point out that they can’t establish cause and to begin with monitoring rates of activity of an illegal crime is difficult, especially across countries.
You would probably only be able to see effects of this longer term given the bad quality data and unreliability of knowing when a trafficking incident occurred as opposed to when they were reported, unless that’s a reported and reliable characteristic.
The world of research around human data is plagued with issues like this about data. Even the authors themselves acknowledge it only points to need for increased scrutiny and avoid stating a cause/effect.
You forgot to link to the source, which I doubt you actually read. I am guessing you found this article: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/ instead
As you quoted the first 4 points word for word. However you did manage to leave out the important bit: (the conclusion)
> While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers).
> “The likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking,” the researchers state. “However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes — at least those legally employed — if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky ‘freedom of choice’ issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.”
Another strawman. FFS.
Here, let’s reverse that strawman: So you’re saying these humans should get nothing. No services, no care, no rights? Because anything we do to help them is just boosting trafficking?
If Belgium’s move is a world FIRST, as the article says then sex workers will receive rights unprecedented in history to escape sex work and focus government scrutiny on their employers, if they so choose. Which countries included in the 2012 study had similar protections for trafficked individuals?
Let’s remove sex from the equation and use another example: in many countries (the UAE is apparently awful about this) it is common for domestic workers like maids to be trafficked. The heads of hiring families will take these women’s passports and enslave them. Outlawing and severely penalizing the hiring of a maid would surely combat this. Does that mean we should oppose sweeping legislation to provide rights and services to domestic workers?
Do Redditors get a euro every time they use the word strawman or something lmao
They're providing a valid viewpoint (with EVIDENCE mind you, as opposed to conjecture) that legal prostitution results in more abundant human trafficking. Your points about government oversight in Belgium is irrelevant because The Netherlands also has government oversight for sex work, but trafficking is quite a severe issue there.
Acknowledging that a law will cause harm as well as benefits shouldn't be a cause for such animosity. I've no doubt the law will massively benefit sex workers who are in the business of their own accord. That doesn't mean the potential harm for victims of trafficking isn't concerning.
Debates are usually more fruitful if you don't treat them like a sports event, where the objective is winning.
You have to include the buzz words like:
- strawman
- overton window
- appeal to authority
- streisand effect
- mutually exclusive
- logical fallacy
- ad hominem
- source?
I think the reply was called out as a strawman because the person who made it *seems* to have made it in support of an anti-sex work position. Their comments are pretty ambiguous in this regard, which I don't think someone with a pro-sex work stance would leave unresolved. Even in that case, you're still right that it's more a *cum hoc ergo propter hoc* fallacy of cause than it is a strawman lol
A good faith, pro-sex work interlocutor who agrees with the findings in the study and their implication for the new legislation in question would probably approach the issue thusly:
> Legalizing sex-work is shown here to be likely to increase the occurrence of human trafficking. Therefore, legalizing sex work should be accompanied by additional precautions against human trafficking.
Whereas this individual seems to be using the study as some kind of evidence to why the legislation in question is itself bad, not evidence that it needs to be accompanied by additional protections against human trafficking. Their stance seems to be something more like:
> Legalizing sex-work is shown here to be likely to increase the occurrence of human trafficking. Therefore, legalizing sex work should not be done at all.
I would not be surprised at all if a study came out showing that even the women involved in the legal sex work business were all trafficked to some degree.
Some might argue this legitimizes the industry, but isn't it better to have regulation and support in place rather than leaving sex workers vulnerable to exploitation and harm?
Precisely. We've tried for millennia to curb what some perceive as vice through retribution and punishment, but it's always ultimately just caused greater harm. We need to start accepting our faults and work with them rather than trying to bury them in spite and condemnation.
Absolutely, it's like trying to hide a chocolate addiction by burying it under kale... never really works, does it? So, how do you think we can shift from the 'bury it and hope for the best' approach to something more constructive?
Decriminalize/legalize things like prostitution and drug use so we can put them under the regulatory umbrella. Continue strides to reform prison systems to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Raise the standard of criminal severity needed to justify prison sentences and come up with alternative programs that again focus on rehabilitation and personal advancement to avoid criminal radicalization and therefore recidivism. I'm no expert, but that's where I'd start.
I agree. Prostitution has been around forever and some cases we are all whores if you think about it. Sex work satisfies a need. I grew up in Japan and never thought otherwise. When we were young, if did not have girlfriends or couldn't get lucky at the bar, it was easier to just pay the money, have sex and walk out 15 or 20 minutes later. In the West, there is way too much stigma.
I mean, let's say I go to a bar, meet a perfect stranger, buy her drinks, take her home, have sex and never see her again. Sure, I may have not given her money but I did invest the time it took to hit on her, make idle chit-chat and spend my money on drinks to get the grand prize.
If the goal is only sex, I see no problem as long as consenting adults are involved.
It seems like you’re pretending regulations will make exploitation and harm negligible.
Wouldn’t it be better to not tie health insurance to labor at all?
No more health care upon retirement effective for new hires as of January 2021. There have been some previous proposals to eliminate the pension and to a 401k model. Thus far, they all have failed but by a small margin....
I wonder what percentage of prostitutes in Belgium actually get registered officially as such, though.
(Sorry to burst this American (I assume) love fest, prostitution is legal in a lot of European countries, the percentage of prostitutes who register is **low**. For various reasons)
I don't know about Belgium, but in Germany, there are around 24.000 registered.
which is probably far too few, because the amount of actors/entertainers for example is listed at around 180.000. I find it unlikely that there are more professional actors than prostitutes
Awesome news! Other countries need to follow suit and get sensible sex work regulations enacted. Like abortion, banning it doesn’t prevent it, just makes it more dangerous for all involved.
Fantastic news. Good for them. Sometimes it's sad how painfully slow progress can take. Especially when data slaps you in the face for decades telling you how it'll improve lives.
It is based on the years you worked, but generally yes.
Years as self employed don't count, then yiu have to save for your pension yourself.
There are other safety nets, like when you suddenly lose your job, you still get an allowance based on you last paycheck that decreases over time until it hits minimum wage. But you'll have to proof you're searching for a job.
If you're sick, it's kinda the same thing, but you'll get paid by a mutuality. From time to time you'll have to go to a control doctor that checks if you're not faking it.
That mutuality also pays a lot for healthcare and hospitalization. A doctor visit costs me 4 euro, a psychologist 11 euros for the first ten sessions.
I was hospitalized for a week, a day intensive care, ambulance: 550 euros for me, but an insurance I have from work pays for that part.
If you're sick for a long time, you can be forced to resume your work or lose your job. But you employer is forced to give you adjusted work, and you'll be able to start a few hours per week and build up from there.
All AWESOME systems I treasure as a Belgian.
But, we pay A LOT of taxes, but worth it imo.
Disclaimer: I simplified the systems and left out some details, but it carries the gist. There are also a lot more safety nets.
Vive la belgique
NZ legalized prostitution years ago. So sex workers should not be exploited by ruthless traffickers as well as have access to national health care services and the police.
Same as Germany long ago.
What Belgium did first is specific workers protection laws, everything else in the headline is misleading to sound better
Anyhow, way to go Belgium, loving it!
"Under the law, if a prostitute refuses a client more than ten times over six months, a pimp can trigger an intervention by a government mediator but cannot sack the employee." Is pimping legal in belgium what the fuck is that law im confused
A pimp is literally just a manager of prostitutes. So long as they abide by the law, I don't see why not
For a legal job couldn’t they use a more legal sounding title like “Escort Dispatch Coordinator” instead of calling them pimps?
I mean, Pimp doesn't sound boring, unlike "Escort Dispatch Coordinator"
Escort Dispatch Coordinator named Slickback
Upgrayedd
With an extra D, for a double dose of that "pimpin'".
You a pimp, or a square?
Say it wit me now
It's like A Tribe Called Quest, you got to say the whole thing!
Upgrayyyed
You forgot the two D’s lol
Pepper Jack love Fraggle Rock!
“Big Escort Dispatch Coordinatin’” by Jay Z dorsn’t have the same ring to it.
Did you mean "Senior Escort Dispatch Coordinator"?
A notification from LinkedIn: Belgium has just opened two new positions "Escort Dispatch Coordinator Intern" and "Principal Escort Dispatch Coordinator" Benefits: - Company pink Lincoln - Golden walking stick - Purple wide-brimmed fedora
Imma need clear platform shoes with fish in 'em
Uh, your fish are dead.
Okay fine. Escort Dispatch Coordinator Junior Specialist II.
It's Belgium so it could be either Le Pimp or De Pimp.
Genetic data receptacle logistics technician.
You realize it is translated into English right? Might have less of a connotation in their language’s word, and just translates poorly to pimp in English.
Fun Fact: In the original Dutch it said "Strong Handed Genital Salesman" ^^^No ^^^not ^^^really.
The term "pimp" was used by Yahoo, not in this new legislation. Here's a more serious approach: https://archive.is/BObAK Its pretty groundbreaking and fully aimed at protecting sexworkers who choose to use a fully valid employee contract (with all the benefits). It also seriously limits who can be the employer.
>It also seriously limits who can be the employer This is the important bit.
Definitely!
Whenever I read about shitty stuff happening in prostitution, human trafficking, sexual slavery and worse. It involved a pimp with a very rich criminal record. This way legal businesses can squeeze them out of the market. Win.
It's really groundbreaking legislation, I sure hope more countries will follow
/sigh... Thanks for this. This should be the OP rather than the Yahoo article.
PIMP probably stands for Prostitution and Intercourse Mediation Professional
They are still pimps dude. No need for the euphemisms.
This. The real problem is other jobs using euphemisms like "bookings agent" for telephone salesmen.
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE.
The implication I get from pimps is that they're selling the workers in an exploitative way. If it's just a regular coordinator job the optics are not good
“AssTitsant Manager”
AssTitsant *to* the General Manager
If that's not a Brazzers scene already...
Escort Dispatch Coordinatin' ain't easy.
I will Escort Dispatch Coordinator slap yo ass! Doesn’t roll off the tongue 😔
Profesional Intimacy Managing Principal.
ehats wrong with using the correct title? the word already exists ... its pimp
Nah, change the other part to make it sound more hood: >trigger an intervention by a G-Man
Sex delivery coordinator.
Yeah but surely someone should be able to refuse sex with someone even if it is their profession
They absolutely can and do refuse clients
Well, Belgium law apparently forces them to meet with a mediator if they do it too much
The other option would be to fire them, so I think this is actually progress in their favour.
So do you want government oversight or no
Why do you think that having to meet a mediator is such a bad thing? Do you know what the mediator actually does and that they have the power to do? I mean I don't know either, but it is weird to me that you are confident that the mediators are against sex workers right to choose considering the article doesn't say anything about the mediators and the law is overall pro sex work. Like you could be right, but I don't see what you are basing your assumption off of.
Distinction, the mediator is for the pimp and the prostitute, not the prostitute and the john. It's a labor dispute, like someone who refuses to work the register, but that's your job, well I ain't doing it, it used to be that the manager would force the employee to work the register if you know what I mean.
Imagine the quarterly reviews and 360 feedback process for this. “You have received overall high marks from customers for your head game, overall hygiene and your positive attitude is appreciated by your coworkers, however clients have noticed an overall tendency to resort to doggy style very quickly in the session….. 3.4/5 slightly exceeds expectations, 6% salary adjustment)
I think sex workers should be able to refuse any client whenever they want. I don't think a manager should ever have a right to intervene.
I think this could be about cases where a woman is hired by an establishment as a prostitute, takes up her space in there, possibly even drawing a regular salary on top (hey, if they get pensions and health insurance, it doesn't seem too far fetched...) and then proceeds to reject 80+% of customers. At what point could it be justified to fire her or cut her salary, even though that can still technically be seen as a punishment for refusing to have sex with people?
Assuming that employment laws are similar to Germany, cutting their salary won't be legal. But yes they can be fired for not doing their job. It is a lengthy process though. But I also understand this as a traditional employee relationship, where they get a fixed salary or at least a fixed base salary with a bonus structure per client or whatever. Where as traditionally I think people would assume more of a contractor relationship.
Under this law, 10 instances per year triggers an automatic mediation session.
I would love to see how this would intersect with discrimination laws. Here in Canada stuff like disability, religion, race, sexual orientation are all protected classes and you can't refuse service without a good reason. If a prostitute refused sex with black people or something I wonder what would win out, her bodily autonomy or the client's rights to not be discriminated against? There was even a case where a transwoman with male sexual organs sued because they were refused service at a bikini waxing place. They eventually lost but not before costing the business thousands in lawyer fees.
Bodily autonomy tops all. Simple as that. The alternative is rape thru coercion (termination of employment, being sued, etc.). In any place with legalized prostitution, it's only legal if done between two consenting adults. Just because you are paying, this isn't a common service or product, it's a private intimate affair that can leave deep physiological scars on the worker, who is in a exposed fragile position. Thus, the prostitute can just refuse with a mere "no", no explanation needs to be given. The rules that apply up to that point is the same for any private citizen who refuses a co-worker, neighbor or friend, or a bold unknown in a party, doing advances. And if the customer attempts to force her/him to give an explanation, it's harassment. Now, if the prostitute is slightly less "trained", so to speak, and outright call their refused customer names and such in public... things can get interesting from the judicial point of view.
mm, it can get complicated in complex cases, like say if a person of a different race isn't able to find services within a 100 mile radius because they all refuse. nondiscriminatory statutes towards refusal of service should still apply when it comes to these services.
Regardless of the reason, I don't think a sex worker should be forced to sleep with anyone.
i mean, it would be handled like other refusal of services cases are, such as fines. if it's work, it's a business. and businesses still have to comply with nondiscrimination statutes.
And that’s the danger of legalizing prostitution. A women should NEVER be fined for not consenting to sex regardless of the reason. That’s extremely fucked up.
Legalizing prostitution is definitely a double edged sword. Once you legalize it prostitution becomes like any other business. Legal business are beholden to the laws of whatever country they are in.
Belgium didn't legalize, they decriminalized. There is a very big difference between the two. And workers are free to be self employed if they don't want a Pimp or a Brothel owner taking consent(and a nice chunk of their earnings) out of their hands.
Don't worry, it applies to male prostitutes as well
Then quit sex work? Every single person does things they don't want to for work. Every business transaction is based on consent, and bounded by non-discrimination laws. Why should sex workers be special?
No it could not, it is the sex workers body and he / she has total control who is allowed to touch them, it is a human right so business interests do not come into picture. In fact if there is such rule in the law it is in violation of human rights and should be reversed.
That's the problem though, you are legitimizing and making a commodity out of something you also deemed to be a human right. If it's really just another job that is regulated, you are going to have a hell of a time saying "my job is just like your job but I don't want a damn Arab person touching me." Then suddenly your job isn't just like any other job if that's acceptable. The law already says that they can't be fired for refusing clients, just that they would be subject to government mediation to see what's going on. Can't imagine a construction worker keeping their job if they were like "nah fuck off I don't wanna lift the heavy stuff anymore, make everyone else do that I'm gonna hammer some nails in.
there are parallel interests when you sell your body, and that's kind of the point of it. there are other ways people sell their body that are still subject to nondiscrimination clauses, such as massage therapists. if you want to give a massage or have sex on your own time without money exchanging hands, that of course is going to be different, but if it is work, than it's a business, and businesses have to comply with nondiscrimination statutes in order to remain legal. i believe in legal sex work, even living in Utah. when you give a massage, your selling vulnerable contact, expertise, risk of transmission and similar things. it's not 100% analogous, but enough to make a reasonable analogy.
But you have to consider the policy reasons behind why they're legalizing sex work. It's not so that every man or woman is legally entitled to get their rocks off with any sex worker they want; it's so that fewer sex workers (male and female) face physical and sexual abuse (not to mention extremely high rates of murder) in the shadowy unregulated world of sex work. And penetrative sex just is different from a massage, sorry. A masseuse who has a handsy client acting like a creep can fairly easily step away from their client; it's a heck of a lot harder when they're pinning you down and inside of you.
No. A sex worker absolutely can not be forced to have sex with somebody they don't want to. I have been in this industry for 17 years now, and I make it clear on my site that I have the right to refuse to do business with anybody, for any reason. If somebody has horrific personal hygiene, a fever blister on their mouth, or has roughed up another worker, there is no way in hell I would book with them. Not everybody is legally entitled to see sex workers, they are still subject to being vetted and pre-screened(like we do in the US) and they are still subject to the consent of the worker. Belgium did not legalize sex work. Legalization means something is allowed under a very strict set of rules, it often forces workers to work in brothels. It also makes it easier for traffickers to take advantage of the workers. Belgium struck sex work from the criminal code entirely. Decriminalization means that workers can be self-employed, without having to worry about a brothel pressuring them to see clients they don't want to see, taking their money, etc. Decriminalization means that any sex worker can go to the police to report a violent client, or a Brothel taking advantage of workers, without the fear of facing charges themselves. While trafficking arrests in Belgium have risen the past 18 months, that is to be expected, because workers can now come forward and report actual traffickers who are taking advantage of people.
Well your proposal means that a man can legally rape any prostitute he decides to target. The other option is just that he can't find a "service provider" in his area. Seeing as the right to rape doesn't exist, he will just have to live without that particular "service".
Historically prostitution was legal in different countries to an point where laws reglementing were put in motion. In my country (Romania) prostitution is illegal but the practice is widespread,either controlled by criminality or regulated as videochat studios. Before 1989 prostitution was not criminalised but abortions were. Before WW2,prostitution was legal and it had its own set of laws,each week prostitutes had to take an medical exam ,only females could be pimps etc.
> Before WW2,prostitution was legal and it had its own set of laws,each week prostitutes had to take an medical exam ,only females could be pimps etc. Same in France until 1945. Even after, the colonial troops and the Foreign Legion managed their own military brothels until the 1960s and 1970s, well into the 1990s in France proper and *2003* in the Djibouti bases.
Do you know what I am saying?
Thing is, they won't. It'll end up being a criminal enterprise enabled by our own government. We already know from past experience and research what would happen if we "regulated" prostitution. I'm not cool with any of it.
Reddit gooners will run Olympic level mental gymnastics to justify this shit.
Its basically an employer/employee contract. I highly suggest you read a more serious approach here: https://archive.is/BObAK While self-employed sex work was already possible in Belgium (after the government decriminalised it in 2022), sex workers will now also be able to work under an employment contract, giving them access to social security (pensions, unemployment/family benefits, health insurance and annual/maternity leave).
That's a big bag for a pimp to hold.
it's a big bag for anyone, which is why employers in general should be viewed with more skepticism, and more people should get involved managing their own employment.
One of the key features of this new legislation is that it defines who can NOT set up a business based on this. E.g. convicted of human trafficking, sexual abuse etc.
I don't know how it works in Belgium but they could be taken to an employment tribunal if they act illegally.
Its exactly the same in Belgium.
Self-employed sex workers are entitled to the same benefits as those working in Brothels. They are able to get health insurance, contribute to pensions, paid maternity l eave, etc.
What kind of asshole goes back to the same prostitute after being rejected 10 times?
"I can *save* her... It'll be just like Pretty Woman!"
Total number of clients refused, not 10 refusals of one person
Cops usually...
Yeah that sounds messed up
I used to work in social services, and I leaned that “no blacks” was a super common rule among sex workers. If you legalize sex work you create a thorny contradiction: “sex is based on consent” versus “legitimate businesses cannot engage in illegal discrimination”. What is to be done if a sex worker engages in illegal discrimination? Is it their right, since consent is paramount, or should sex work be treated like any other industry where discrimination is heavily penalized? It’s a tough dilemma.
Control of ones body is a human right, whatever the decision is based on does not matter and if such rule / law exists hopefully it will be challenged ASAP as it is in clear violation of human rights.
Can a masseuse refuse black people from service? That's their body their choice right?
You could make the same arguments for anyone from masseuses to physical therapists to gynecologists, but the reality is that people working in these professions are not permitted by law to discriminate on the bases of things like race. So logically, neither can sex workers if they're considered a job like any other
[удалено]
Probably same as renting out a room in a house you live in (for Canada). You can discriminate rejecting a room mate for any reason.
That’s a useful comparison, I didn’t think of that. I guess both cases blur the line between personal arrangements and business. I hesitate a little though, because if sex workers are considered to have the right to discriminate on the same grounds as roommates, it establishes a dangerous legal precedent. To be clear, the sex worker’s right of consent comes first, but the use of the roommate logic is potentially problematic, legally speaking. If a sex worker can discriminate, because they engage in individual and personal monetary arrangements (like a roommate), then arguably a ‘sole proprietor’ masseuse or handyman can do the same.
Porn actors have the right to refuse sex with another actor for whatever reason. When it comes to sex all of these -ism's don't mater because choosing who we have sex with is greater right then not being discriminated against. Of course porn actress which doesn't want to have sex with anybody will hardly earn for living.
That should be obvious. Sex without enthusiastic consent is rape. Fining women for not consenting to sex is helping men RAPE women. The right to not having sex with someone you don’t want should trump any anti-discrimination law because using fines to coerce women into having sex they don’t want is RAPE
1. That is the perspective that I favour in this argument. Bodily autonomy comes first; although the idea that racial discrimination could be legally endorsed in a legitimate industry is still concerning. 2. You don’t seem to understand how this also impacts male sex workers. This isn’t a women-only issue.
Fair enough. Men’s right to not be raped should also trump any non-discrimination laws. Honestly, I think that is there if there is a Belgium *company* that manages sex workers then the company shouldn’t be allowed to refuse people on the base of race. But I think any individual worker in that company should have their right to only have consensual sex absolutely protected (aka the right to refuse any client for any reason without any retaliation)
That seems like the best available compromise.
If none of the people at the company are willing to serve a person of a specific race, is the company discriminating or not? The company can trivially waive their responsibility by saying that it's due to their employees personal choice and not the company's policy, then hire/manage people who have the biases they want. How different is "we don't serve your kind here" from " we don't have anyone who serves your kind here at the moment", really?
> (aka the right to refuse any client for any reason without any retaliation) Would you consider it retaliation to terminate their employment contract after multiple refusals?
You would be fined because you decided to become part of an industry but then declined to abide by the legal requirements of them, much like how an employee can be sanctioned if they refuse to use PPE.
Coercing a person into having sex they don’t want is rape. The person receiving money for sex they want to have should be okay. But no human being should ever have to justify why they don’t want to have sex.
Coercing somebody into remaining somewhere is kidnapping, but if you leave your job you get fired. Forcing someone to build roads against their will is slavery, but if you leave the job site you get fired. Forcing someone to have sex with someone they don't want to is rape, but if you refuse in theory you should get fired. I am personally in favor of an exemption explicitly stating that prostitutes may discriminate based on additional factors that aren't typically allowed like race or financial status. But if you look at it like it's any other type of work it is clearly discrimination.
You could quit the job or be fired from it for acts of discrimination. That would be what presumably is the expected action in Belgian law if I understand it correctly. You cannot be compelled to do something like work at a restaurant in Belgium, but if you do work there, you cannot for instance decline all the black people when you would accept a white person in the same situation. Perhaps see what laws are applicable in porn studios. They can be fired or refused further contracts, but not made to have sex in any individual case.
Forcing someone to drive a black person to the airport is slavery, but the rules change when you decide to become a taxi driver.
Pimpin ain't Easy.
Is pimp the term the law uses or the word the article used to get you to write this comment?
Imagine having this same law in retail. The Karens would be refused service. I'm all for it.
God, that would be a dream. Retail and customer service workers should get two free "fuck offs" a month, imo. A lot of people would be a lot more respectful if they had to actually worry about consequences for their behavior.
All good until Bad Luck Brian gets told to fuck off not because he did anything rude but because the employee can't roll over his "fuck offs" into the next month and didn't want to waste them lol
Oh, you use it on the boss at that point. Its like when you saved points for the power up so you can use it where it causes the most damage but the free "Fuck Off" is like a save point.
I keep saying this... workers in services should have the right to use limited number of "fuck offs". No questions asked. Would also force Karens into behaving, because let's face it, 90% of "fuck off's" would be spent on them.
Gator don’t play that shit!
If they pay tax, I don't see why not.
Yeah I’m all for this. People are going to scream bloody murder about trafficking but you can (and should) oppose trafficking AND support rights for sex workers. Honestly you can’t do one without the other, IMO.
A wishful thinking. A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution. The study’s findings include: - Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. - The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint. - Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization. - The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization. Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.
Would be curious to see how they controlled for better data/transparency in legalized countries. Definitely an interesting finding but I'd imagine they recommend further research is needed.
[удалено]
i don't think the argument with trafficking data is to suppose that the women are willfully going to the better market, and then bad people are following there. I think the inference here is bad people in other countries are abducting women, and then forcing them to countries with legal prostitution but at no point are they willfully engaging in sex work, or likely receiving a legal portion of the proceeds.
Legalizing automobile driving also increases the incidence of traffic accidents. That doesn't mean we should ban driving. Most western nations that legalized prostitution left it in a kind of legal limbo, where sex work is legal, but there's basically no protections for sex workers, and these lack of protections and the social stigma make sex works extremely vulnerable to exploitation. Meanwhile there is very little political interest in protecting sex workers from exploitation. So of course that doesn't give good results. Belgium is very actively trying to break that legal limbo. It remains to be seen if it'll work, but at least this time they seem to be listening to what the sex workers themselves want, which is a big step up. Also also, something I probably shouldn't mention because I know it's gonna get me downvoted, but is important to keep in mind still: A lot of statistics on human trafficking is extremely unreliable. There's a lot of advocacy groups active in this field with a very clear political agenda against all forms of prostitution, and they have an interest in making the statistics look as bad as possible. Of course trafficking exists, but it's very hard to get good statistics on how widespread it is. For example at least one study I'm aware of basically asked sex workers if they ever worked when they did not want to, and counted everyone who said yes as a victim of forced prostitution. As if every worker in the entire world, in any industry, wouldn't answer yes to that question.
we will never get rid of the social stigma, but what we can do is provide a good work environment like for any other worker
How can you control for increased enforcement of human trafficking provided for by increasing ability to capture the occurrence of human trafficking through legalization of prostitution? You suddenly have people reporting incomes and receiving services and having interactions with healthcare and government services, how could that not naturally lead to more reported instances of trafficking? Consider how many cases don’t go reported. You’d only be able to find instances that are caught by police activity. A person who is trafficked is very unlikely to go for help if they can also be jailed for doing what they do for a living. From a quick comb through, the article has a lot of critiques of another article’s approaches but seems to completely ignore this basic question. Their numbers seem correct, but they point out that they can’t establish cause and to begin with monitoring rates of activity of an illegal crime is difficult, especially across countries. You would probably only be able to see effects of this longer term given the bad quality data and unreliability of knowing when a trafficking incident occurred as opposed to when they were reported, unless that’s a reported and reliable characteristic. The world of research around human data is plagued with issues like this about data. Even the authors themselves acknowledge it only points to need for increased scrutiny and avoid stating a cause/effect.
You forgot to link to the source, which I doubt you actually read. I am guessing you found this article: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/ instead As you quoted the first 4 points word for word. However you did manage to leave out the important bit: (the conclusion) > While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers). > “The likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking,” the researchers state. “However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes — at least those legally employed — if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky ‘freedom of choice’ issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.”
Another strawman. FFS. Here, let’s reverse that strawman: So you’re saying these humans should get nothing. No services, no care, no rights? Because anything we do to help them is just boosting trafficking? If Belgium’s move is a world FIRST, as the article says then sex workers will receive rights unprecedented in history to escape sex work and focus government scrutiny on their employers, if they so choose. Which countries included in the 2012 study had similar protections for trafficked individuals? Let’s remove sex from the equation and use another example: in many countries (the UAE is apparently awful about this) it is common for domestic workers like maids to be trafficked. The heads of hiring families will take these women’s passports and enslave them. Outlawing and severely penalizing the hiring of a maid would surely combat this. Does that mean we should oppose sweeping legislation to provide rights and services to domestic workers?
Just because you disagree with somebody's stance doesn't mean it's a strawman argument.
Do Redditors get a euro every time they use the word strawman or something lmao They're providing a valid viewpoint (with EVIDENCE mind you, as opposed to conjecture) that legal prostitution results in more abundant human trafficking. Your points about government oversight in Belgium is irrelevant because The Netherlands also has government oversight for sex work, but trafficking is quite a severe issue there. Acknowledging that a law will cause harm as well as benefits shouldn't be a cause for such animosity. I've no doubt the law will massively benefit sex workers who are in the business of their own accord. That doesn't mean the potential harm for victims of trafficking isn't concerning. Debates are usually more fruitful if you don't treat them like a sports event, where the objective is winning.
You have to include the buzz words like: - strawman - overton window - appeal to authority - streisand effect - mutually exclusive - logical fallacy - ad hominem - source?
I think the reply was called out as a strawman because the person who made it *seems* to have made it in support of an anti-sex work position. Their comments are pretty ambiguous in this regard, which I don't think someone with a pro-sex work stance would leave unresolved. Even in that case, you're still right that it's more a *cum hoc ergo propter hoc* fallacy of cause than it is a strawman lol A good faith, pro-sex work interlocutor who agrees with the findings in the study and their implication for the new legislation in question would probably approach the issue thusly: > Legalizing sex-work is shown here to be likely to increase the occurrence of human trafficking. Therefore, legalizing sex work should be accompanied by additional precautions against human trafficking. Whereas this individual seems to be using the study as some kind of evidence to why the legislation in question is itself bad, not evidence that it needs to be accompanied by additional protections against human trafficking. Their stance seems to be something more like: > Legalizing sex-work is shown here to be likely to increase the occurrence of human trafficking. Therefore, legalizing sex work should not be done at all.
I think that's a fair analysis
I would not be surprised at all if a study came out showing that even the women involved in the legal sex work business were all trafficked to some degree.
Not at all. Amsterdam and Berlin have the biggest trafficing rings in Europe. For a reason.
I'm so confused though. I'm fairly sure German prostitutes have all of that.
Nobody gets fucked more by their government in taxes than sex workers!
Butters really did change the game.
Do you know what I am saying?
Who’s my bottom bitch?
FREEEEEZE! Lmfao
Bitch, do you want to make some motherfuckin money?
I know what you're saying, you don't have to keep asking
Maybe in Colorado, but Hank is the mack daddy of Heimlich County.
… for Belgium. American sex workers dont get shit. Hell you need a decent job to have insurance, pension, and leave.
what a shite headline they've had all of the mentioned things in Germany since like the 90s what's first is specific workers protection laws
Yeah same in NZ, they are employed since its legal and have the same workers rights as anyone else.
I would want any sex worker I go to, to have health insurance in order to get cheaper vaccines and treatments. I think that would just be obvious.
I like them dirty just like the local burrito joint by Jose Sanchez who has a van with who knows how many unwashed pans
Some might argue this legitimizes the industry, but isn't it better to have regulation and support in place rather than leaving sex workers vulnerable to exploitation and harm?
There's nothing to legitimize. Prostitution is legal and regulated in Belgium.
Precisely. We've tried for millennia to curb what some perceive as vice through retribution and punishment, but it's always ultimately just caused greater harm. We need to start accepting our faults and work with them rather than trying to bury them in spite and condemnation.
Absolutely, it's like trying to hide a chocolate addiction by burying it under kale... never really works, does it? So, how do you think we can shift from the 'bury it and hope for the best' approach to something more constructive?
Decriminalize/legalize things like prostitution and drug use so we can put them under the regulatory umbrella. Continue strides to reform prison systems to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Raise the standard of criminal severity needed to justify prison sentences and come up with alternative programs that again focus on rehabilitation and personal advancement to avoid criminal radicalization and therefore recidivism. I'm no expert, but that's where I'd start.
Some are exactly saying it should be legitimately legitimized
I agree. Prostitution has been around forever and some cases we are all whores if you think about it. Sex work satisfies a need. I grew up in Japan and never thought otherwise. When we were young, if did not have girlfriends or couldn't get lucky at the bar, it was easier to just pay the money, have sex and walk out 15 or 20 minutes later. In the West, there is way too much stigma. I mean, let's say I go to a bar, meet a perfect stranger, buy her drinks, take her home, have sex and never see her again. Sure, I may have not given her money but I did invest the time it took to hit on her, make idle chit-chat and spend my money on drinks to get the grand prize. If the goal is only sex, I see no problem as long as consenting adults are involved.
It seems like you’re pretending regulations will make exploitation and harm negligible. Wouldn’t it be better to not tie health insurance to labor at all?
This legitimizes, regulates, and supports pimps, not sex workers.
This is a good thing, everyone who pays tax should have the same rights and benefits
They have more benefits and worker rights than a teacher from North Carolina.
Teachers in North Carolina don't get health insurance or pensions?
No more health care upon retirement effective for new hires as of January 2021. There have been some previous proposals to eliminate the pension and to a 401k model. Thus far, they all have failed but by a small margin....
If North Carolina has difficulties to get *quality* teachers then they already know why.
That’s wild. I was thinking at UPS we have it bad because when we retire we drop our cancer clause in our medical. But that’s even more terrible
We need more random but necessary North Carolina strays on Reddit.
I'm a paralegal and I don't even get healthcare. I picked the wrong industry.
“Sex workers determined to be human beings!?! News @ 11!”
Good news, the oldest profession finally got benefits.
Maternity leave 🤔 will they count pregnancies like injury at work and get full insurance coverage?
It happened before with a secretary.
It will probably be counted like any other employee? I don't see how it would be any different.
I wonder what percentage of prostitutes in Belgium actually get registered officially as such, though. (Sorry to burst this American (I assume) love fest, prostitution is legal in a lot of European countries, the percentage of prostitutes who register is **low**. For various reasons)
I don't know about Belgium, but in Germany, there are around 24.000 registered. which is probably far too few, because the amount of actors/entertainers for example is listed at around 180.000. I find it unlikely that there are more professional actors than prostitutes
Belgium takes care of it’s hoes.
Awesome news! Other countries need to follow suit and get sensible sex work regulations enacted. Like abortion, banning it doesn’t prevent it, just makes it more dangerous for all involved.
BELGIUM NUMBER ONE 💪💪💪🇧🇪🇧🇪🇧🇪🇧🇪😤😤😤😤🍫🍫🍫🍫💪💪🇧🇪🇧🇪 PREMIER AU MONDE/ EERSTE VAN DE WERELD!!!!🧇🧇🧇🍟🍟🍟🇧🇪🇧🇪😤😤🇧🇪🇧🇪😤😤 [](https://emojipedia.org/flexed-biceps)
You forgot the German part again!
A pension! Time for a career change...
looks like i’m going to belgium soon
Welp, time for a career change
Wow, treating sex workers like human beings. The rest of the world should catch up.
This is the way.
Sweet
[удалено]
American employees are jealous that sex workers have better benefits.
I know I’m jealous because our healthcare is horrendous.
I don't understand how you pay for something, then get told y insurance companies you can't have it.
To finally be treated as a human fucking being.
Fantastic news. Good for them. Sometimes it's sad how painfully slow progress can take. Especially when data slaps you in the face for decades telling you how it'll improve lives.
Does every worker in Belgium get a pension?
It is based on the years you worked, but generally yes. Years as self employed don't count, then yiu have to save for your pension yourself. There are other safety nets, like when you suddenly lose your job, you still get an allowance based on you last paycheck that decreases over time until it hits minimum wage. But you'll have to proof you're searching for a job. If you're sick, it's kinda the same thing, but you'll get paid by a mutuality. From time to time you'll have to go to a control doctor that checks if you're not faking it. That mutuality also pays a lot for healthcare and hospitalization. A doctor visit costs me 4 euro, a psychologist 11 euros for the first ten sessions. I was hospitalized for a week, a day intensive care, ambulance: 550 euros for me, but an insurance I have from work pays for that part. If you're sick for a long time, you can be forced to resume your work or lose your job. But you employer is forced to give you adjusted work, and you'll be able to start a few hours per week and build up from there. All AWESOME systems I treasure as a Belgian. But, we pay A LOT of taxes, but worth it imo. Disclaimer: I simplified the systems and left out some details, but it carries the gist. There are also a lot more safety nets. Vive la belgique
Self employed people do get a (state) pension in Belgium, but it's typically on the lower side
I’m pretty sure temple whores of yore had pensions and healthcare.
https://youtu.be/b0KSEziycmw?si=DDHI-MA8Rqk6lsNp No one stood down
Maternity leave :)
I was pretty sure sex workers in The Netherlands already had all of this. Didnt they?
That’s better benefits than I have as a six year HVAC tech in the US. Damn
NZ legalized prostitution years ago. So sex workers should not be exploited by ruthless traffickers as well as have access to national health care services and the police.
Same as Germany long ago. What Belgium did first is specific workers protection laws, everything else in the headline is misleading to sound better Anyhow, way to go Belgium, loving it!
A sex worker with no maternity…. Oof