Who is the Victim

[KeyStone]

If someone goes to a drug dealer and buys drugs from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the buyer is the victim and the seller is the exploiter.

Why? Because the dealer is making money from someone's addiction.

If someone goes to a sex dealer, and buys sex from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the seller is the victim and the buyer is the exploiter.

Why? No frickin' idea.

[guyser]

If someone goes to a drug dealer and buys drugs from them, who is the victim?

If someone goes to a sex dealer, and buys sex from them, who is the victim?

In many cases neither are a victim. When I buy a bottle of wine , is the LCBO or me the victim? Why none of us are. We engaged in a mutually agreeable transaction.

The dealer supplies what people want (within reason-not selling around little kid schools etc aside) and the people willingly and knowingly pay for the goods.

The sex dealer is the same. That some are there because of horrible conditions , or even threats of harm , is really not that different than a women forced to work because her hubby is a low life non working scumbag.

Now there are victims of circumstance in all situations, but it isnt the norm.

[M.Dancer]

If someone goes to a drug dealer and buys drugs from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the buyer is the victim and the seller is the exploiter.

Why? Because the dealer is making money from someone's addiction.

If someone goes to a sex dealer, and buys sex from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the seller is the victim and the buyer is the exploiter.

Why? No frickin' idea.

Okay I'll take the plunge.

Your model prsumes that both the drug dealer and the prostitute are willing participants, which is not always and probably not often the case. While I rarely hear of anyone beiong forced to sell drugs, news items about women being forced into prostitution are common. I've known personally two school friends who grew up and became prostitutes, in both cases drugs and drug debts were the gateways. In this regard they were twice victimized...victims of addiction and victims of pimps and Johns. I know one died in Vancouver of drugs and I have lost contact with the other.

[BigAl]

Okay I'll take the plunge.

Your model prsumes that both the drug dealer and the prostitute are willing participants, which is not always and probably not often the case. While I rarely hear of anyone beiong forced to sell drugs, news items about women being forced into prostitution are common. I've known personally two school friends who grew up and became prostitutes, in both cases drugs and drug debts were the gateways. In this regard they were twice victimized...victims of addiction and victims of pimps and Johns. I know one died in Vancouver of drugs and I have lost contact with the other.

Okay Dancer, I can see your point -- and I'm very sorry to hear about your friends -- but we have to sort of roll this back. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing, isn't it? Your friends were forced into prostitution due to drug debts. Why did they have drug debts? Because they were addicts. Why were they addicts? They took too many drugs. Why did they do that? --that's where it gets hazy. Who knows why they started shooting up or snorting or whatever they were doing? Bad childhood? Shitty relationship? Depression? Who gets the blame? In order for there to be a victim, there has to be a crime -- there has to be a criminal behind it. Same thing with those pimps and Johns -- what drives a man to pay for sex, or to abuse women? Maybe his dad abused him, or something like that -- and the list goes ever backwards. I think the idea of "victim" has to be played very carefully out. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely. Are these people "victims"? Probably, but they're victims of other victims. It's a never-ending cycle. I don't know if I'm being clear...not enough coffee yet today.

[DrGreenthumb]

Okay Dancer, I can see your point -- and I'm very sorry to hear about your friends -- but we have to sort of roll this back. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing, isn't it? Your friends were forced into prostitution due to drug debts. Why did they have drug debts? Because they were addicts. Why were they addicts? They took too many drugs. Why did they do that? --that's where it gets hazy. Who knows why they started shooting up or snorting or whatever they were doing? Bad childhood? Shitty relationship? Depression? Who gets the blame? In order for there to be a victim, there has to be a crime -- there has to be a criminal behind it. Same thing with those pimps and Johns -- what drives a man to pay for sex, or to abuse women? Maybe his dad abused him, or something like that -- and the list goes ever backwards. I think the idea of "victim" has to be played very carefully out. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely. Are these people "victims"? Probably, but they're victims of other victims. It's a never-ending cycle. I don't know if I'm being clear...not enough coffee yet today.

I don't believe buyers or sellers are victims in either case. Ever hear of any woman being "forced" into prostitution to pay back debts to or obtain drugs from the local pharmacist? Not likely. When things are carried out in the open there are legal means to deal with debt collection and dispute resolution that prevent the victimization of all parties involved. Prohibition in BOTH cases is the real victimizer.

i don't know anyone who has felt victimized by the person who is selling them a product they want to buy. Following your logic ie addiction and drugs I guess the prostitutes must really be victimizing those poor sex-addicted johns.

[acidburn]

you could say that every one involved is an exploiter in the drug situation. considering both parties know what they are doing and just exploiting their own knowledge inorder to get what they want. whether its money or drugs to get high.

in the sex situation... thats harder... because sometimes the seller is doing it and they know exactly what they are doing. or take a case of someone so addicted to sex thats what they want and they are exploiting an easily accessable situation to get what they need.

money and pleasure are 2 persuasive factors... people want them and will do alot to get them. alot more than msot people think about in their average day to day.

[BigAl]

you could say that every one involved is an exploiter in the drug situation. considering both parties know what they are doing and just exploiting their own knowledge inorder to get what they want. whether its money or drugs to get high.

in the sex situation... thats harder... because sometimes the seller is doing it and they know exactly what they are doing. or take a case of someone so addicted to sex thats what they want and they are exploiting an easily accessable situation to get what they need.

money and pleasure are 2 persuasive factors... people want them and will do alot to get them. alot more than msot people think about in their average day to day.

And that's exactly where I start having trouble with the "victim" card, acidburn. At the end of the day, somewhere along the line, people need to take responsibility for themselves and their own choices. It's really easy to call yourself a victim of circumstance or society or whatever, but somewhere there you made a decision to take a particular action. It's absolutely essential that you take responsibility for that action. At least, I think so.

[RB]

If someone goes to a drug dealer and buys drugs from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the buyer is the victim and the seller is the exploiter.

there are laws for a reason - both dealer and user are committing crimes. Why do we even bother with those who cannot take responsibility for their lives. Folks should do the right thing and report both the so called victim and drug dealer if they are aware of these situations. Plus if you are aware information you cannot proclaim being victim because you are now an accessory.

Edited January 15, 2009 by RB

[Melanie_]

If someone goes to a sex dealer, and buys sex from them, who is the victim?

Generally, we would say that the seller is the victim and the buyer is the exploiter.

Why? No frickin' idea.

There is a big push here in Winnipeg to raise awareness of the exploitation of children in the sex trade industry. The legal age of consent for most sex is 16 (although we continue to have a double standard, with the legal age for anal sex being 18), so even if a 14 year old "consents" and takes money from someone, he or she is not legally old enough to give consent. The buyer is a pedophile and the seller is a victim.

After they have reached the age of consent, is there truly a victim and an exploiter? The seller could have been a victim of many things in his/her life, but it is still that person's choice to offer sex for money. Maybe for drugs, maybe to feed a hungry baby, maybe to pay the bills... If he/she is doing it as a clear choice, without coercion from someone else, I don't see them as a victim of the buyer.

[August1991]

Okay I'll take the plunge.

So will I.

I think that what other posters above are missing (including Morris) is that other people are affected by the purchase of sex or the purchase of drugs. If it were only two mature, informed people involved in a deal, then perhaps there would be no problem.

Sex and drugs are like buying gasoline. Other people, third parties, are affected by the transaction.

And as to drugs, I'm not so sure that buyers are always mature, informed people.

[KeyStone]

Well,

I made these statements to stir the pot a little.

Even if we accept the fact that johns are addicted to sex, in a similar way to people being addicted to drugs, drug-buyers are not using the body of the seller in the same way that sex-buyers are. Therein lies the difference, at least in the eyes of the court.

As several posters have pointed out, many of the sex-sellers are forced into it, which brings up an entirely different set of circumstances.

My point here is that:

1) Some men are victimized by the constant flesh parade that is out there. Advertising is everywhere. Porn marketing is on all kinds of web sites. On top of that, you have prostitutes on the street corners, clearly soliciting what they have to offer - a constant reminder of what is available.

So, as a result, men risk everything because of this weakness - they risk a criminal record, their marriage, their family, their reputation - all for 15 minutes of sex with a stranger. Doesn't that sound like an addiction. This does not seem like a rational decision to me.

But rather than help these men, or punish the solicitors we punish them and hold the prostitutes blameless, even going so far as to consider them victims.

2) There is a general assumption that many of these women do this because they are forced into it through poverty.

This is the case sometimes, but not that often.

First of all, this is Canada. No one is going to die if they don't become a prostitute. There is social assistance, shelters, and a hundred and one programs to help women - abused or otherwise. They do have other choices.

Now, they might be addicted to drugs, and if you consider drugs a need - then I guess they are forced into prostitution - although they could choose to get help for their addiction in a sober moment.

I think that for many of these women, they simply don't have the stigma around sex or view it as something special the way that we are taught to in society. They see it as a shortcut, knowing that they can make far more money doing that, than working at 7-11.

The woman selling her virginity for 3.5 million got the idea because her sister paid for college from 3 weeks of prostitution.

These are not victims - these are people taking shortcuts.

In conclusion, prostitution should be legalized and confined to brothers.

That way:

1) We can tax them.

2) Johns won't screw up their entire life, over one stupid night.

3) The spread of venereal diseases can be minimized.

4) Underage people can be protected.

5) The pimps can be taken out of the equation.

6) The violence and danger towards women can be eliminated.

[eyeball]

there are laws for a reason - both dealer and user are committing crimes. Why do we even bother with those who cannot take responsibility for their lives. Folks should do the right thing and report both the so called victim and drug dealer if they are aware of these situations. Plus if you are aware information you cannot proclaim being victim because you are now an accessory.

So we invent the crimes and then the laws is that how it works? Is moral engineering just a hobby of your's or do prosecute people for a living or something?

[eyeball]

So will I.

I think that what other posters above are missing (including Morris) is that other people are affected by the purchase of sex or the purchase of drugs. If it were only two mature, informed people involved in a deal, then perhaps there would be no problem.

Sex and drugs are like buying gasoline. Other people, third parties, are affected by the transaction.

And as to drugs, I'm not so sure that buyers are always mature, informed people.

The same goes for alcohol and tobacco, which are both perfectly legal and provide huge revenues to the same state that's supposed to bust you for sex and drugs.

I think the poor state must be the real victim here. It can't get its signals straight because the population is either too drunk, stoned or horny to figure out how it wants to be governed.

[KeyStone]

So we invent the crimes and then the laws is that how it works? Is moral engineering just a hobby of your's or do prosecute people for a living or something?

Yeah, that's how it works.

For instance, we could create a law that says you can't complain about government laws.

Then we would arrest anyone that complained. Sounds harsh, but it's actually fair.

After all, they are only criminals.

[August1991]

The same goes for alcohol and tobacco, which are both perfectly legal and provide huge revenues to the same state that's supposed to bust you for sex and drugs.

Alcohol and tobacco (and gasoline) are exceptionally taxed, or suffer special restrictions.

Yet, if you buy a cup of coffee (caffeine), you pay no special tax (other than GST/PST) and suffer no special restriction (you don't have to go outside to take your caffeine hit).

Are State revenues the deciding factor? A tax on sex would seem a sure money earner. So why doesn't the State tax sex, or all drugs? Here's my answer: It has little connection to State tax revenue. Some transactions between two people have no effect on third parties; for other transactions, some third parties are incensed.

Consider a tax on sex or different drugs with that in mind.

-----

I'll finish with an aside.

If you want to understand the power relations in a society, look at its education system - and if you want to understand its morality, look at its tax system.

Edited January 15, 2009 by August1991

[August1991]

For instance, we could create a law that says you can't complain about government laws.

Then we would arrest anyone that complained. Sounds harsh, but it's actually fair.

It's not fair, and it doesn't work.

The Soviet Union tried it - and look what happened to the Soviet Union.

[BigAl]

There is a big push here in Winnipeg to raise awareness of the exploitation of children in the sex trade industry. The legal age of consent for most sex is 16 (although we continue to have a double standard, with the legal age for anal sex being 18), so even if a 14 year old "consents" and takes money from someone, he or she is not legally old enough to give consent. The buyer is a pedophile and the seller is a victim.

After they have reached the age of consent, is there truly a victim and an exploiter? The seller could have been a victim of many things in his/her life, but it is still that person's choice to offer sex for money. Maybe for drugs, maybe to feed a hungry baby, maybe to pay the bills... If he/she is doing it as a clear choice, without coercion from someone else, I don't see them as a victim of the buyer.

The only problem I have with this Melanie is the whole question of "age of consent". Clearly I'm no proponent of pedophilia, but it seems awfully arbitrary to me that we decide 16, or 14, or 18 is some kind of legal precedent for sex. Example: you have to be 18 to vote (i.e. to determine who runs this country) but 19 to buy a beer? That seems terribly unbalanced. Anybody have thoughts on what the "right age" is? I'd appreciate an explanation why, too.

[RB]

So we invent the crimes and then the laws is that how it works? Is moral engineering just a hobby of your's or do prosecute people for a living or something?

yes