Being a trans woman in IT is a bit weird -- because I can do incredible things with my mind, I'm off the hook my sisters are on, that makes them have to hook.
Several roommates ago, I literally came home and found that my (also trans) roommate, who in addition to being trans was also dealing with immigration and had recently lost her job and had begun turning tricks at home. Had I not come home early from the university, I wouldn't have known.
And I've always hated the Canadian legal system for making me kick her out. Because just being her roommate, under the previous legislation, would have classified as 'living off the avails' and would have made me legally indistinguishable from her pimp. Just for being her roommate.
That's the sort of pauperizing, soul-crushing bullshit that you never, ever forget.
Also, I'm a big fan of Katrina Pacey, the lawyer mentioned in the article. I've worked with her a few times on activist stuff (I got into sex worker advocacy after my up-close-and-personal. They can't do it themselves, they go to prison when they try. Well, before today. Go Katrina Pacey! Go Canadian legal system!)
I had some inclinations that way as a teenager, and I am SO glad I wasn't living in San Francisco or some other place that would encourage me to "be me".
Now it's way later and I'm kind of at the end of my rope with long-term clinical depression. I'm pretty sure that within the next few years it's going to come down to a choice between killing myself and transitioning. Only now, my transition options are way worse and I picked up some dependents along the way who are going to be incredibly hurt either way.
Maybe I can keep it going like this somehow until I reach the natural end of my miserable life, and for the sake of the people depending on me, I will keep trying. But every year it gets harder and harder to make myself get out of bed and face life hiding inside the shell of a person I'm pretending to be.
So, in my considered opinion, no, I don't think anyone would be better off if there were more people like me.
Is there no scenario where the younger you could have explored your sexuality in a supportive environment and not have experienced these trauma - without necessarily going all the way and having surgery done. So, in your words, no pretending, but keeping the shell.
I make no claims to understand what it means to be transsexual, I am just trying to understand the dynamics involved.
I didn't fit all those rules, so I wondered if I was supposed to be a cross dresser. The thing was, the clothes didn't really do much for me from a sex standpoint. As I explored my sexuality, I gradually figured out that I was bisexual and that I was submissive, but sorting out sex things like that didn't really change anything about feeling like I was supposed to be female or feeling depressed because it seemed like I was living the wrong life.
Having said that, there is still a lot of ground between keeping everything completely under wraps and having surgery. But for most of my life, I didn't feel comfortable exploring it. I've spent most of my life completely despising my body, so looking at intermediate alternatives meant I had to dwell on that, which was extremely painful. It was easier to spend all my spare time coding or whatever -- and trying really hard not to think about what was wrong -- especially since I wasn't really sure I had any palatable alternatives anyway.
At this point, I'm not at all passable, so it's hard for me to take an intermediate step like trying to go out and experience the world as a woman part time to see how it goes. Nevertheless, as I mentioned in another response, there are lots of steps I can take if I decide to that don't require committing to any irreversible surgery. I just have to figure out what makes sense for me.
There are lesbian trans women, and straight trans women, and gay cis men and all kinds of permutations.
For some people, "The Surgery", (sometimes called Sexual Reassignment Surgery, but many people prefer the term Gender Confirmation Surgery, or just "bottom surgery", as opposed to breast implants which are "top surgery"), is the main thing, but for an awful lot of people, it isn't -- even though most non-trans folk seem to think of it that way. For a lot of trans people, living day to day life as their real gender is the important thing, and they're not so hung up on what's between their legs. For some people, hormones help them feel like they're "supposed to", and that's the main thing. For others, they hate their chest, and top surgery is most important. While others may think that Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS) is the most crucial -- not least because for many trans women, FFS is the difference between passing and not passing, which makes an enormous practical difference in day-to-day life and often even in terms of personal safety.
For me, I've read a lot about this, including many personal accounts, and heard a number of first hand stories from a group I've started attending. I honestly don't know how things will work out for me if/when I start transitioning. I've heard enough horror stories to go into the process with the appropriate level of fear and caution.
But at some point when your life becomes one big well of depression that doesn't respond to medication and you start to lose your ability to function in day-to-day life, there's really nothing left to do but start trying to explore the remaining options. So, I'm not transitioning, but I'm looking into it and trying to figure out what the hell I'm going to do.
I have no stake in this discussion, and if anything, am generally opposed to the topic/lifestyle/whatever. But I have empathy for anyone going through such depression that they ultimately take their own lives. When the primary end goal for many is SRS/GCS, and when the data suggests that leads to higher suicide rates, I find it deplorable that anyone would try to suppress that information.
Some might even say that is good example of cocksure, willful ignorance.
I have heard lots of studies on trans folk kicked around, but some of these things have inherent methodological problems. In particular, I think we're all aware that the gold standard for medical efficacy studies is double blind studies, and it's pretty obvious that a double blind study on SRS is impossible, right? Worse yet, in this study they're not even comparing SRS patients with other trans folk who didn't have an operation, they're comparing them with the general population of people of their original assigned birth sex. We already know that trans people have an enormously high suicide rate already, so this comparison tells us absolutely nothing about a before/after comparison, never mind what we really want to know: what happens to the same population if they do/don't get surgery.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21364939/ -- You didn't cite a study, but hopefully this was the right one?
"The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide."
So trans people are at an increased risk of suicide compared to cis people of the gender the trans person transitioned into.
The original claim was that trans people are at increased risk of suicide post-op relative to pre-op transsexuals!
You're "generally opposed" to a medical intervention that has dramatically improved the lives of many thousands of people over the last 50+ years? You're "generally opposed" to something that I know for a fact has dramatically improved my own life?
Go fuck yourself. I'm not wrong, you misrepresented the study and you're a bigot.
Stop acting like a child just because reality doesn't fit your preconcieved notions of how things should be.
If a little social pressure was all it took to get you to ignore your "inclinations" I doubt you're on the same spectrum of inclination that the OP finds herself. You also probably shouldn't think that other people with the same inclinations would be as easily influenced by the mere lack of support for the "lifestyle".. which again implies choice rather than certainty.
But ignoring that, there was definitely something going on with me. In elementary school for history dress up day, I wanted to be Betsy Ross. In college, I always hated dealing with chest-thumping groups of males, and I preferred female friends. Halloween was my favorite holiday for obvious reasons. Trans inclination was something long enough and strong enough that an "open-minded" parent or community could have pushed me that way.
But over time the importance of those inclinations seemed to fade. I'm a reasonably happy, reasonably successful mostly-straight male. And my success in the workplace and success in family relationships is more important to me than playing with my gender identity. Given what I have heard from trans people, I am pretty sure that I am better off than I would be in a less traditional lifestyle.
If you're happy as a male, you don't suffer from gender dysphoria and you don't have a strong urge to cross dress and don't think in your head "Im a girl" then you're probably not trans unless you've done a superhuman effort in repressing it.
Maybe people think it's a "lifestyle" because they only notice the transsexual people that dress and act in such a way as to socially signal that they have an atypical gender identity. The majority of transsexual people try to hide their changing bodies as they get hormonal therapy till they can successfully blend in ("pass") as a cis gendered woman/man.
You might not think it's right to describe my feelings about my gender as a treatable medical condition, but I'm one of the ones actually undergoing this treatment right now, and benefiting greatly from it. I think it's very descriptive and appropriate to refer to transsexualism as a treatable medical condition.
We're born, we suffer and sometimes die, we sometimes get medical interventions using drugs and surgery and this usually results in substantial, sustained improvements in our happiness and functioning. That's pretty much the definition of a medical condition.
Reductionism sure is useful when properly applied, as any engineer knows.
Transsexuality is a treatable medical condition. Someone's gender identity as woman, man, genderqueer, etc is, of course, not completely reducible to neurology or biology and has very significant social, historical, and subjective aspects.
Specifically, for myself: I'm a transsexual - i.e. I have a fairly rare neurological developmental condition that I'm undergoing treatment for.
But, much more importantly, I'm a woman - and that's something much harder to define, something indescribably precious and wonderful, yet taken for granted and commonly denigrated.
Also, we'd become less supportive of minority religions according to that rationale - and ignore racial discrimination as an impossible problem.
A lot of trans people would suffer, and require medical treatment, even in a perfectly accepting society.
But it isn't. Mental illness, depression and suicide are disproportionately high among transsexsuals, both pre and post op. Even in societies where they are fully accepted. It is not unreasonable to think that the differences that have been found in their brains predispose them to certain mental illnesses. You can't just blame it on society.
Dani wrote after undergoing sex reassignment surgery: "Don't do it! That's my advice. This is the most awful, most expensive, most painful, most disruptive thing you could ever do. Don't do it unless there is no other alternative. You may think your life is tough but unless it's a choice between suicide and a sex-change it will only get worse. And the costs keep coming. You lose control over most aspects of your life, become a second class citizen and all so you can wear women's clothes and feel cuter than you do now. Don't do it is all I've got to say... That's advice I wish someone had given me."
Her full essay is on a memorial site, though Google says it's malware-infected, so take precautions:
I wonder if the outcome (and her recommendations) would have been different if she were going through this today.
A final Dani quote: "No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had spent more time alone with my computer.'"
Having said that, at some point you have to size up the risks each way. Everyone gets to make their own decision about their own life. And ironically, your last quote, to me, counsels exactly the opposite choice from your first. Hating my gender presentation makes me just want to hide away from life with my computer.
From what I understand, the suicide attempt rate is about fifty percent in that population before transition, so I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of intolerance already.
Doesn't make much sense, does it now?
Perhaps you mean if culture were more supportive of those lifestyles, in adulthood? The best time to experiment is as a teenager - we should encourage that, explore now so your adult decisions are made without hesitation. Not allowing experimentation is how we end up with so much teen suicide, where teens are experiencing confusion and oppression.
Ethically, I don't think there is any choice except to be supportive of these people's "lifestyles", which I again put in quotes because the word makes it sound like a whimsical decision, when in fact to the person making the decision it is very much necessary.
Have you considered that your inclinations may have nothing to do with the people who have those "lifestyles"?
I spent my first twenty-four years avoiding myself, and although the seven that have since passed have been riddled with hellfire, I can't explain to you how enormously worth it it was.
And guess what, I used to think and say the same things about myself that I now hear you say. But I'm not going to go there. I wish you peace and happiness and as much self-awareness as you can bear.
Of course it would be bad if people cheered their kids into transitioning when they aren't actually trans - but I doubt this really happens, even in the most liberal and open minded San Francisco neighborhoods. Medical professionals constantly try and second guess trans people to make sure they are serious - and this is even more intense when the patient is underage.
Secondly, taking cross-gender hormones is itself an excellent diagnostic test to see if someone is a transsexual. If the patient feels better, then it's a strong sign they will benefit from transition. If they feel worse then it's indicative that they are not trans. The effects of both estrogen and testosterone are fairly minor for the first few months and readily reversible. Doctors are starting to become more willing to give patients a "trial" on hormones without absurd levels of gatekeeping like in decades past.
It's not like some poor, confused boy is going to put on his sister's panties one day and bam the parents call up their doctor and instantly transform the boy into a trans girl. Transition is a long series of many small decisions (medical, legal, social, sartorial and personal) combined with tons of introspection. It's not an overnight process that someone could realistically be pushed into by naive, overly tolerant parents, or anyone else for that matter.
Perhaps I did miss the point due to the false analogy.
The purpose of the face tattoo thought experiment is to help you understand what a trans person has to deal with in practice.
If it's the former, I can understand the reactions of people, it just looks weird; of course people are going to have apprehensions of hiring someone who does dresses like the opposite sex for a public facing job.
Thanks for asking the question respectfully, I really do like explaining things to curious (although I caution you I'm almost alone in this; please don't make a habit of unsolicited questions to trans people! But for better or worse, I love to talk about myself, so let's use it to spread some understanding and peace for the holidays!)
FFS: Facial feminization surgery
SRS: Sex reassignment surgery
HRT: Hormone replacement therapy
TLA: Three letter acronym
I'm partially asking because I'm curious as to what is the term preferred by the transsexuals, and partially because I feel that words are descriptive and hence void of emotional connotation, which should instead be inferred from the context in which the words are used.
most johns are after a so-called 'shemale'
Second draft (removing redundant quotes, following writing advice of Bill Zinsser)
most johns are after a so-called shemale
Third draft (shorten that sentence! Tighten it up!)
most johns are after a shemale
....Fourth draft (after walking away and coming back to my writing, suddenly hearing it): most sex-industry customers are after an MtF no-op transsexual -- a 'shemale', in the derogatory parlance of the industry.
Some trans people only think it, some take supplementary sex hormones (typically testosterone for FTM; and one or more of the female hormones, and possibly also anti-androgens for MTF), and some have surgery to give them parts that match their identities.
You're thinking of cross-dressers, which community has some overlap with the trans world, but is, in general, a different thing. Cross-dressing is generally also a kink, while being trans is an issue of identity.
It makes less open-minded people uncomfortable, to be around others who are not like them. This is what I mean by 'unfortunate': that not everyone is comfortable in the face of different.
If you bit into a steak and found that it tasted like chocolate, you'd be confused and disturbed. Now multiply that feeling by a large factor.
I (obviously) support equal rights and access to life saving hormones and surgery for transsexual people - since I am one myself. Yet, from my elementary knowledge of evolutionary biology, it's long been my suspicion that there is some sort of deeply rooted antipathy towards trans people that is not completely socially constructed. After all, having sex with a trans (pre or post op) person in modern times, or an intersex person (modern or historical times) would seem to work against propagation of someone's genes.
Still, the bigger causal factors in transphobic sentiments are, I believe, socially constructed and rooted in patriarchal misogyny. There are way more (cis) men with violent, transphobic attitudes against trans women than there are (cis) women with violent, transphobic attitudes against trans men.
The only reason to be possessive about someone else's sexuality is insecurity, I think. Which can be very visceral, too, and loves to camouflage itself.
Perhaps more relevantly, it makes less open-minded people uncomfortable to be around others who don't fit their mental model of the world.
Kudos for your job. I worked with a trans woman (a fellow developer too) before and she was one of the sweetest people at the office. She even found a great guy as a boyfriend. Considering all, I think Canada is a friendly environment for transexuals, you have to see how they are treated in Latinamerica.
No it wouldn't. You have to actually be doing something for her. Children, spouses, roommates, etc are all safe. You were still at risk though, because your apartment would qualify as a bowdy house according to the law.
One of the things that you couldn't do was also very hurtful. You couldn't team up with other street workers in order to insure your safety. That would be a whorehouse, and they are illegal.
So, you end up with girls in the streets, with no security, who cannot even talk straight about what they were willing and not willing to do.
I'm very happy that those laws are lifted. And it doesn't come out of the blue. There has been discussions about in in the media in recent years, and I believe that most people understood that forbidding those girls to have security is an idiocy.
The results have been mixed however. It has created a new market of prostitutes, typically illegal immigrants forced into it by human traffickers, who are willing to do more for less than the legal ones. Meanwhile the legal ones are forced to pay taxes with all the paper work that comes with it, since they are now first class citizens, and they are understandably unhappy about that and typically try to evade taxes, making their activity illegal again.
I don't think criminalising it again would be a good idea, but there is no easy solution for this issue.
You've got a very naive view of the world, you clearly have never lived in the situation and areas that you seem to claim expertise in.
These women need money more than a lot of their patrons are looking for sex.
Not all cities are alike. :)
Parliament can specifically say "we know this law is unconstitutional, but we like it anyway, so it's staying for 5 years. And then we can renew it if we want." They may not want to do that, as it's a pretty strong thing to do, but they are absolutely able to.
All hail Empress Elizabeth II, terror of all the known world?
Laws and customs only mean as much as a government willing to be responsible to the people, as the NSA has shown everyone.
You would be quite mistaken to believe such hyper-legalistic logic only came into existence with The United States. The US only built on the myriad of legalese already put in place by the British, Byzantines, Romans, and Greeks, <insert dominate culture/country of the era>.
How do you think Julius Caesar came to power? He abused the laws put in place by the Roman Republic by refusing to step down at the end of his term.
 The Byzantines themselves have become synonymous with "complex political system"
You are more correct than you could ever possibly imagine.
The Queen herself did nothing.
It certainly is. The syntax of the Australian Constitution sits firmly within British conventions of monarchical behaviour, buttressed by the Acts of Westminster and the Australia Acts.
We are an independent nation in custom and law. If Her Majesty tried to do anything, she would be ignored. If she sued, the High Court would politely explain that her role is entirely ceremonial and that Parliament is the supreme source of executive and legal power in Australia.
The principle that Parliament is supreme over Crown was established in British law before Australia was colonised. It's pretty well-accepted at this point that the royals have no power.
The Queen has never, and cannot, do so in right of Australia, because her powers are irrevocably and excludably delegated to the Australian Governor-General.
In terms of dissolving any Parliament nominally under her sovereignty, it can only be done by the Queen or a Governor-General upon advice. The Queen can't do it of her own initiative. Neither can the Governor-General. They have to be told to do it by the Government of the day.
(And mainly, I was just trying to bring up an interesting legal quirk of our constitution, since it's fairly unusual and most of HN's audience might not be aware of it).
It was illegal to talk to a John, making vetting the John uh, difficult. It was illegal to hire bodyguards, because they would be living off the avails.
While the ruling comes into effect only next year, the practical upshot, as with other rulings of this ilk in recent years, is that arrest and prosecution will now proceed only in the most egregious cases.
My bold and brave prediction is that this Conservative-majority Parliament will duck the issue altogether and make regulation of prostitution a provincial matter - simply because they are unlikely to be able to reach any sort of consensus that would not fracture a fragile alliance between the ultra-conservative base, which makes most of the contributions, and the just right of centre centrists that are its silent majority.
I hope you're right. What you've proposed is likely the best we could expect from this government.
following that logic most laws would be unconstitutional.
- personal drug use (of any kind)
- bans on same-sex marriage (which I just looked up, and seems to be legal in Canada anyway)
- any form of gun control
I'm not saying that I do or do not think the above should be legal, but they all are examples of "we know what's best for you". I think that's what the GP commenter was alluding to.
On other side many people lost unemployment support, because they refused to work in brothel as cleaners or maintenance personnel.
I fully support this. STIs are one of the biggest public costs of prostitution.
(Yes, this is a public cost. Every time a new person is infected with (e.g.) HIV, from an epidemiological perspective, that increases the chances of some copy of the virus in some person mutating into a virulent - even airborne - version. This is why you should care about HIV infection rates, even if you practice safe sex and don't use IV drugs, etc.)
> On other side many people lost unemployment support, because they refused to work in brothel as cleaners or maintenance personnel.
How is that any different from refusing to work in a hotel or a hospital as a janitor (or even as a nurse)?
They may not like the line of work, but that's no different from disliking taking a job at Halliburton. While I sympathize with the goal of choosing a job ethically, in the US (not sure about Germany), unemployment benefits and requirements aren't designed with that in mind.
 Even "curable" STIs are a public health problem We are already on the verge of creating - if we haven't already created - strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all antibiotic treatments.
 You wouldn't believe some of the stuff nurses in hospitals have to put up with on a daily basis.
> Every time a new person is infected with (e.g.) HIV, from an epidemiological perspective, that increases the chances of some copy of the virus in some person mutating into a virulent - even airborne - version
More virulent, sure I'll grant that. But airborne?! HIV is in the Lentivirus family of Retroviridae. They're slow to reproduce, and airborne viruses need to be expelling many viral particles into the air to transmit. Additionally-- from where would HIV aerosolize?
The only airborne retrovirus that I came across is Jaagsiekte, and it's benefited by that because it specifically targets the lungs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaagsiekte_sheep_retrovirus
HIV already has lower transmission rates in genital->throat scenarios. It has too many evolutionary hurdles to become an airborne virus. If HIV does oneday become airborne it's morphology would look so different that we'd classify it as something else.
Rhinoviruses (the virus that causes the common cold) are easily aerosolized because they're tiny and are in a protein capsid.
Sorry, that was maybe an overkill explanation, and the core of your statement ("more virulent") is correct. It just triggered some nerding out :D
Clearly you haven't visited Bankok :-)
Not sure what is situation in US. But in contimental Europe one pays a lot of money on social tax (about 10% of salary). And government will jump through hoops to pay as little as possible.
I'm not sure how else you would handle it.
Can society even afford to pay to put all of those people on disability for life (and pay for their healthcare)?
Do you have any source for your statement on many people loosing unemployment benefits for refusing to work in brothels ? That sounds quite fishy.
I have no credible source I could post here. However the work is for _SUPPORT_ personnel, not actual prostitutes.
It's my understanding that what you've said is a myth. In any case, all reasonable social security policies have a "ethical objection clause", e.g. people can't be forced to work in occupations that they ethically object to - and this should mean that social security should be impossible to lose for refusal of employment.
One of the things I've noticed reading newspaper articles and websites regarding legal rulings in Canada (the full depth of my research, admittedly), is that the reasoning seems to be governed by the judges' personal opinions of what would be fair ("we must protect the prostitutes from harm"), whereas American rulings seem to rely more upon the interpretation of texts such as their constitution. Is this an accurate characterization? If so is this a result of a differently structured legal system, or just a "cultural" difference?
The Canadian SC is very good at their jobs. They definitely do not make their decisions based on their "personal opinions of what would be fair". Rather, their decisions are based on their measured, professional understanding of the charter, the law and existing jurisprudence, and the effects their decision may have on the administration of justice. Thankfully they are very experienced jurists with great respect for the rule of law and jurisprudence.
It would also be mildly alarming to learn that the SC consists of "very experienced jurists with great respect for the rule of law and jurisprudence" only "for the most part".
Once prostitution itself is illegal then the current legislation might pass muster on the section 7 question. Certainly, at the very least, the courts would need to address the question again.
All the Justices were former jurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current...).
Well even after the ninja edits, your comment still reeks of overclass condescension, using meaningless feel-words ("very good at their jobs", "measured, professional understanding"), essentially saying , "trust them, pleb, they know better than you".
You don't think it might be an allusion to the American Supreme Court's habit of legislating how they personally feel rather than with any serious basis in fact or precedence? Chill.
If you don't think a group of judges with years of experience knows the charter, the law, and applicable jurisprudence better than the average citizen then you're deluded and need to seek help.
A very large number constitutional cases end up hinging on the words "demonstrably justified", which is why it looks like judges are making decisions based on what seems "fair": They are, quite literally, called upon to decide whether there are good reasons for laws or if the laws are arbitrary, broader than necessary to achieve their purpose, et cetera. As a result, it's necessary to look at external evidence to determine the constitutionality of laws, and a law which is constitutional today might be unconstitutional tomorrow.
Or as one lawyer I know put it: If Canada's constitution were a normal law, it would be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness.
Constitutionality in Canada is governed by the judges' interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the constitution. In this case, the judges determined that the legislation was not simply 'unfair', but infringed on a group of people's fundamental rights.
Canada, for various cultural and political reasons both pre and post Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a much stronger tradition of 'living tree' constitutionalism that sees constitutional documents as able to grow and change as the values of a society change over time.
From an uneducated opinion on the piece this seems to be the difference between Common Law vs Statutory Law. In Common Law the precedence of cases is used, where opinions and subjectivity are perhaps more inclined to change a decision, in contrast; Statutory Law has more to do with the enforcement of prescriptive laws written down by the legislature. While both Canada and the U.S are based on common law, we seem to lean further to the common side then our neighbours to the south.
Yet, I see your point. Along the lines you suggest, US Constitutional jurisprudence has many secondary doctrines that have been established over the years. One illustration (relevant if this were an American case) is the notion of "strict scrutiny" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). Basically, this is a more refined interpretation of the Constitution in cases where individual rights are being traded off against legislative power.
I wonder if someone could link to a more refined interpretation of this case?
The US constitution protects the right to free speech, so I assume the SCOTUS can strike down laws that restrict it.
Like, say, a scheduling/reservation app for this?
If "the activity" or "act" takes place in the US, it would still be illegal.
If you have a pimping/pandering company based in Canada, offering services in the US, those on the US side could possibly face even higher charges of international human trafficking. (cf, the Mann Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act )
The US can arrest its citizens for their behavior in foreign countries where their behavior violates US law, whether said activities are legal or illegal in said foreign countries. One could say US law follows the citizen. (cf, UNITED STATES v. PASSARO [extension of jurisdiction over US Gov. contractors], US PROTECT ACT [anti-child exploitation], etc)
The US can also deny visas to foreign nationals based upon what US law considers "moral turpitude", even though such may be legal in their home country. Relevant to this story, the US could deny a high visibility prostitute into the US, because most US states (and federal law, see MANN ACT) prohibit prostitution. (cf, INA 212(a)(2)(d): http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/H... )
This would not be a great idea.
"The US can arrest its citizens for their behavior in foreign countries where their behavior violates US law"
I believe that this is specific to federal law, and not state - and to my knowledge, state laws are the ones that specifically make prostitution illegal. There are federal laws that say I can't try to bring someone across the border for the purpose of prostitution in the US, but I think that's that extent of it.
18 USC 2421+ (MANN ACT):
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Sec. 2422. Coercion and enticement
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
2422 b) looks promising as it's pretty clearly saying you can't pimp someone out - but it only applies when the individual being induced/etc hasn't attained 18 years of age.
In one fell swoop, you are both persuader and persuadee. Victim and victimizer.
The law states "any person", which can refer back to the person of "Whoever". It does not state "another person", which would distinguish a separate person from the person of "Whoever".
Presumably in this context, our entrepreneurial poster is not looking to rent his or her own body out via app, but to assist others in scheduling of such assignations.
Take a look at overview of the RICO statue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru...).
Finally, a use for all those questionably-named Rails gems!
I imagine that doing something across jurisdictions could actually make things worse (I'm speaking as a non-lawyer and general ignoramus here). Maybe if you maintained plausible deniability at all times. Might be worth consulting a lawyer considering the size of the industry ($$$). OTH, there are other potential sources of liability than legal (going up against organized crime might prove more difficult, than say taxicab unions, for instance).
Seems like a win for everyone.
PG - If you are reading this.Can we please do something to keep sanity of HN. Save HN.
Three choices here:
3. One nights
One is an health risk, another is simply wrong... prostitution is expensive.
I would gladly give those people access to better, healthier, more regulated services.
I wouldn't count rape as an alternative to sex. It's more about having power over someone in a disgusting way.
Hell, I couldn't do without sex myself.
Edit: scratch that. It's not even about willpower at that point. I have no idea how an healthy adult could go without sex.
For how long do you think a healthy adult could go without sex?
A week? A month? A year? Ten years?
I wonder whether I am healthy according to your definition.
I think I could go for 10 years without sex. But I'd rather not :-)
But I cannot imagine having sex with a person that does so only because I give them money for it. I'd prefer having no sex then.
Don't get me wrong I am all in for legalizing prostititution. I am proud for living in a country that has done this.
4. Masturbation 5. Cold Shower 6. Abstinence
Let's not pretend everyone has it equal.
Of course a client has a choice and the choice to use services offered by sex workers is just as valid as choosing not to. Even if you don't care for it yourself that doesn't justify the status of law as it is today.