@shatterdrose Not everything is a gendered issue. Just because someone draws a line and says that this particular problem doesn't reduce to sexism doesn't mean they support spousal abuse and sex trafficking (both of which are obviously gendered). Compare Emily's experience to this one: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/my_embarrassing_picture_went_viral/

Personally I would call the latter true internet abuse. Notice that by her own report most of the perpetrators were women. Equating these two concerns trivializes the issue. If Emily had said maybe women don't want to be STEM bloggers because in their country they are subject to genital mutilation, sexual slavery, or aren't educated then I would agree with her. Instead she ranted about her attractive white westerner problems.

Yeah, but the fear of abduction and human trafficking is at an all time high

Long time Silvercord-I must take issue with the loaded prelude, " In the climate of abduction and human trafficking today" ok for these reasons.

No widespread prevalence of the same is evidenced in anything but loaded stats and news orgs continually pumping fear and hatred into the minds of the weak.

Also, using the same loaded words the news-bobbles use well, it simply shows that the programming you've consumed all these years dutifully, is effective and perpetual.

Abduction happens pf course, it's perpetuated by illegals, gang-members, career criminals, CIA(and other such initialed criminals)...It only happens because dumb asses have let the country become an institution of creating slaves and criminals of average humans programmed through dire environments, SPECIFICALLY the environment of fear and helplessness fostered by the people (sub-human garbage) posing as leaders.

Who let the country turn into shit? Everyone who voted because it "felt" right and then spent their civil disobedience tickets on bitching istead of doing something tangible about it outside of the approved means of protest.

Like voting-in wildcards, picketing senator's homes and offices, withdrawing $$ from the worst of offenders...ETC.

HIstorys' a motherfucker.

As i understand it, the parents need to sign a waiver that their children could walk home unsupervised. In the climate of abduction and human trafficking today I can't imagine ever agreeing to this. I also have a difficult time seeing that the school would ever suggest this would be a good solution. Apparently they did.

While it's super cynical, there is truth in this. Human trafficking will never entirely disappear, even when you look at countries with legalised prostitution. Some men like children, some like the thrill of genuine rape, some people are just monsters. It will never completely go away.
However, legalised and monitored prostitution can and will lower the likelyhood that the prostitute going down on that high profile politician we care so much about is actually a sex slave. Unless he's one of the aforementioned monsters, of course.
It certainly won't help to keep it a black market.

Dude.

READ.

"What it boils down to is this; the chief benefit of legalizing prostitution is that it gives us a chance to protect the workers and possibly take a bite out of crime in the process. However, legalization is not the end, as criminal abuse of the workers can and will happen if the law isn't properly enforced.

It is perfectly possible, and perhaps even plausible, that trafficking continues to flourish even in countries where prostitution has been legalized, but is that an issue of weak legislation and enforcement, or is it simply an issue that is inherent to prostitution?"

But I guess it's easier to claim that I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said when you just cut out everything but a single sentence from my original comment.

And when I said that newtboy made good points, I was talking about stuff like;

"Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade."

Or...

"My question would be, do the prosecutors believe legalization contributed to their ability to prosecute this case, or is it the consensus that legalization has made it easier for the criminals to make slaves of women? Either could be the case based on this article."

If you cherry-pick specific sentences or cut out most of the text in our messages and then substitute our arguments with your own interpretations of our positions, you are going to make it impossible for us to communicate.

Points like...

"In countries where the brothels are legal and regulated it's nearly impossible to force sex slavery, at least in a legal brothel like this one."?

or

"There is 0% slavery in the legal brothels, they make plenty of money without slaves and they don't want to lose their license to print money."?

He's entitled to his own opinion but he's not entitled to his own facts.

You both seem to be making the same assumption...that a legalized brothel is a regulated brothel. Why would the owners of a brothel risk using sex slaves in a legal brothel? Money...if it isn't regulated or poorly regulated than their isn't much risk is there?

Regardless this is pointless as the video isn't targeting legal brothels. It's to bring awareness to human trafficking. The organization www.stopthetraffik.org addresses this as a global issue.

If you have a problem with them using Amsterdam as the setting for the video then you're just missing the point.

Honestly, I feel that he presented many points that were put quite well. While the articles you linked are interesting, they don't really give us enough data to actually know what's going on. All they tell us is that these two things happened, and they may or may not have been caused by deeper, systemic issues. Two articles isn't enough to form a big picture (no matter how you or I might feel about it personally).

What it boils down to is this; the chief benefit of legalizing prostitution is that it gives us a chance to protect the workers and possibly take a bite out of crime in the process. However, legalization is not the end, as criminal abuse of the workers can and will happen if the law isn't properly enforced.

It is perfectly possible, and perhaps even plausible, that trafficking continues to flourish even in countries where prostitution has been legalized, but is that an issue of weak legislation and enforcement, or is it simply an issue that is inherent to prostitution?

If you need more data you can research it yourself...I'm done. I've provided two separate articles that indicate that human trafficking is still a problem and on the rise even in a country where prostitution has been legalized.

You have presented nothing but an opinion based on a hunch.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — A court convicted six people Friday in what prosecutors said was the largest case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands.
Experts said the case could have an impact on Dutch policy because the crimes were committed after brothels were legalized in 2000 in the hope that legitimacy would make it easier for the police to monitor prostitution.

Five of the six convicted men were found guilty of participating in a large, well-established network that kept women in prostitution by force — and with extreme violence.

Some of the victims were compelled to have breast enlargement surgery, and one defendant was convicted of forcing at least one woman to have an abortion. Women were beaten and forced to sit in icy water to avoid bruising. They also were tattooed.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-11-Dutch-human-trafficking_N.htm

Yes, that is my position.
You are correct, there is way more illegal prostitution in Nevada than legal prostitution, there are only 2 legal brothels that I know of. That leaves a huge black market which fosters crime and abuse. There is 0% slavery in the legal brothels, they make plenty of money without slaves and they don't want to lose their license to print money. If there were enough legal brothels, there would be far less illegal prostitution, an far fewer prostitutes being taken advantage of. It will likely never reach 0%.
I can't speak to the article you quoted/link, I don't have a WSJ account and so can't read the article. I would bet that the truth is that it has curbed (but not completely ended) human trafficking by brothels. (there are many kinds of trafficking, and legal brothels would only serve to make one of them less profitable and/or too dangerous, so the fact that it "failed to stem human trafficking" is meaningless and fallacious.)
Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade. If that's what they've done (and I don't know) they may as well have just stopped prosecuting any prostitution. The end game is the same, and simple 'no prosecution' is way cheaper than changing laws.

You're argument seems to be if it's legal then there is little incentive to do it illegally. But just think of your example...The Bunny Ranch. I'd bet there is far more illegal prostitution going on in Nevada then legal prostitution.

"AMSTERDAM — This city's famed red-light district looks much as it has for years, with bikini-clad women behind plate-glass windows fluffing their hair or beckoning to passersby, colorful beds visible in the background as an unspoken invitation.

But things could soon change for the sex-for-hire industry following a recognition in the freewheeling Netherlands that its decision in 2000 to legalize brothels has failed to stem human trafficking."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578543370643627376.html

Yes!

Whether the particular activity is legal or not, human traffickers specialize in trapping people in horrible jobs and living conditions.

It is a common tactic of human traffickers to promise people a certain kind of job or pay. Once they arrive in another country, they are informed that they owe additional fees for the transportation and paperwork. In order to pay that debt, they are given no choice but to do the work made available to them. Furthermore, their passports are confiscated; they are threatened, abused, controlled and deceived to the point that they rarely approach officials in order to get help.

I thought the TSA was only interested in photographers and muslims? Don't they just wave human traffickers through?

Having no TSA in Russia, some human-traffickers are more brazen than others...