This is the 6th oxford debate video that iv watched and I'm really disappointed that they are all cut into separate videos. There are no links to the whole debate and no links to the other speakers from either side. There isn't even a 1 of .... speakers; I don't know how many people participated on this one topic.
+Arthur Leung usually they put the debates like this in playlists but for some reason I wasn't able to find this one either so I reckon they forgot to file it. I think there are 6 speakers in total for this debate.
its not about legalizing or making it illegal; it's about whether or not it should be promoted and normalized...and respected as a career choice....overall the answer is no
The supposed dangers of prostitution that this woman cited firstly have nothing to do with a consensual transaction for sex. This women could state no legitimate reason as to why she believes consensual prostitution (without any violence being committed) should remain unregulated. The dangers this woman cited are the possibilities of abuse which are much higher if the industry is completely unregulated and the workers are not protected by the law. In what world can you really say that a prostitute would be safer standing on a street corner for a pimp and having sex with a random person in a random place than if she was in a legitimate brothel with security guards and legal protection? Simply an emotional argument lacking any rational or logical basis.
I don't think you were really listening to her. She said that regulation made no difference to the safety of women and made it easier for women to be brought in from outside and be exploited. She also gave first hand accounts from women in both New Zealand and Germany where it had been legalised.
Imran Nazir It is ludicrous to say that regulation makes no difference. How could you honestly believe that the risks on sex workers in the black market are exactly the same as the risks in a regulated environment? Utter nonsensical horseshit. By the way she didn't use any statistics to prove that regulation leads to worse or comparable risks she just used circumstantial evidence to speak about countries where there are sane policies on prostitution and the rest of her points and statistics primarily regarded to prostitution in the context of black market environments (which only proves the opposite point she intended to make).
Imran Nazir You believe that because I want prostitutes to have worker and legal protections that I am addicted to porn? Do you get a kick out of seeing prostitutes jailed or exploited by the black market? Do you understand what a black market is? Whether or not I personally would want my children to be sex workers is irrelevant to whether or not adults should be allowed to sell sex. I wouldn't want my children to be cleaners so are we going to make that illegal now mate?
Well all we had was a debate with two side. Ones side talked about empowerment, free choice and a right; the other talked about exploitation, brutality and saw porn/adult entertainment/prostitution as something that should be there as a choice. The lady stated her case well. Legalisation had no positive effect on exploitation and in a way I can see that a pimp would not want any damage occurring to his property legalisation or no legalisation. She stated her case with first hand accounts, why don’t you state your with some evidence instead of getting angry.
It is unfortunate to see how Ms O'Brien dissimulates what the data she cites actually measures. By referring to the Gender Inequality Index (GII) in the context of the Nordic model of illegalising prostitution, she implies that prostitution-related violence against women would be lower in the Nordic countries than in other, broadly comparable Western jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the truth is that the GII does not measure prostitution-related violence against women. In fact, it does not measure violence against women at all (but female health, education, and participation in the labour market and in politics). The limited international data on violence against women which does exist is quite inconsistent due to differences in national crime recording, as well as probably in reporting culture. Nonetheless, it does not seem to bear out Ms O'Brien's argument that Germany somehow had a much more significant problem with violence against women than the Nordic countries. What is even more unfortunate is that Ms O'Brien is from a country where there has been a change in legislation, which should have produce some data more conducive to rational argument than the - no doubt harrowing - anectodes she relies on.
+HK47 oh well lucky the LSE did: www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf
The Nordic model has been thoroughly discredited in the scientific literature. In every country that has adopted this model, the vast majority of sex workers consistently report that they feel less safe and suffer more abuses. The scientific consensus of experts all around the world is that full decriminalization of sex work is the only viable model that improves safety and health of sex workers. The Nordic model is grounded entirely in ideology, not science. In science, one must investigate all of the available evidence and a draw conclusion concordant with that evidence. In an ideology, one already has a predetermined conclusion for which they seek out supporting evidence while ignoring the inconvenient evidence.
@@SiberianExpress2007 many of the so called "sex workers" are privilaged liberal feminists, funded by pimps criminal money. Of course they talk against the Nordic model. The Nordic model is logical, scientific and most importantly facts support it. Where did you draw this conclusion of yours, can you show your "evidence"?
Meta-analyses, including this one, consistently find that decriminalization is the model that affords sex workers the most safety and negotiating power while the Nordic model endangers them. This conclusion is endorsed by numerous scientific organizations including the World Health Organization, The British Medical Journal, The Lancet, Amnesty International, and many others. The Nordic model is an ideologically motivated framework that is based on no evidence and is defended against all evidence. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30532209/
@@SiberianExpress2007 Thank you for the calm talk. That study reinforces the usefulness of one side of the Nordic model, as it also decriminalizes prostitutes, which is proved to be effective. Furthermore the study does not evaluate the Nordic model fully, as a hybrid system at all, so the claim "the Nordic model endangers them" is not substantiated. Thirdly, most importantly, the Nordic model's biggest asset is that it reduces demand besides decriminalization of prostitutes, which logically reduces the number of trafficked abused victims. This effect is recorded and well supported over many studies, while there is no scientific study to oppose this. The Amnesty International and such are relying on the opinion of sexworker organisations that are proved to be linked to human traffickers and pushing criminal pimp agenda. Not surprisingly, the adoption of the Nordic model is currently highly represented in new EU directives and the most developed countries (in gender equality and welfare).
@@SiberianExpress2007 Here, I have a study that actually considers and compares the different policies. Evidence and scientific literature overwhelmingly support that full criminalization, full decriminalization and legalization are all worse compared to the Nordic model. Mathieson, A., Branam, E., & Noble, A. (2015). Prostitution policy: legalization, decriminalization and the Nordic model. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 14, 367.
The Nordic model, (or better labelled the "men are disgusting" model) invalidation the male sexual experience and stimulates the very violence that we all want eradicated. Decriminalisation of sex work while we fix poverty through education.
This speaker isn't arguing for gender equality. She is discarding 100% of male sexual desire and replacing it with 100% her own desire, (which may be what most women want, but it isn't what all women want.) The invalidation of the male experience stimulates the violence that we all {should} want eradicated.
This is the 6th oxford debate video that iv watched and I'm really disappointed that they are all cut into separate videos. There are no links to the whole debate and no links to the other speakers from either side. There isn't even a 1 of .... speakers; I don't know how many people participated on this one topic.
+Arthur Leung usually they put the debates like this in playlists but for some reason I wasn't able to find this one either so I reckon they forgot to file it. I think there are 6 speakers in total for this debate.
its not about legalizing or making it illegal; it's about whether or not it should be promoted and normalized...and respected as a career choice....overall the answer is no
The debate really should have just been the final speakers from each side.
The supposed dangers of prostitution that this woman cited firstly have nothing to do with a consensual transaction for sex. This women could state no legitimate reason as to why she believes consensual prostitution (without any violence being committed) should remain unregulated. The dangers this woman cited are the possibilities of abuse which are much higher if the industry is completely unregulated and the workers are not protected by the law. In what world can you really say that a prostitute would be safer standing on a street corner for a pimp and having sex with a random person in a random place than if she was in a legitimate brothel with security guards and legal protection? Simply an emotional argument lacking any rational or logical basis.
I don't think you were really listening to her. She said that regulation made no difference to the safety of women and made it easier for women to be brought in from outside and be exploited. She also gave first hand accounts from women in both New Zealand and Germany where it had been legalised.
Imran Nazir It is ludicrous to say that regulation makes no difference. How could you honestly believe that the risks on sex workers in the black market are exactly the same as the risks in a regulated environment? Utter nonsensical horseshit. By the way she didn't use any statistics to prove that regulation leads to worse or comparable risks she just used circumstantial evidence to speak about countries where there are sane policies on prostitution and the rest of her points and statistics primarily regarded to prostitution in the context of black market environments (which only proves the opposite point she intended to make).
.
Imran Nazir You believe that because I want prostitutes to have worker and legal protections that I am addicted to porn? Do you get a kick out of seeing prostitutes jailed or exploited by the black market? Do you understand what a black market is? Whether or not I personally would want my children to be sex workers is irrelevant to whether or not adults should be allowed to sell sex. I wouldn't want my children to be cleaners so are we going to make that illegal now mate?
Well all we had was a debate with two side. Ones side talked about empowerment, free choice and a right; the other talked about exploitation, brutality and saw porn/adult entertainment/prostitution as something that should be there as a choice. The lady stated her case well. Legalisation had no positive effect on exploitation and in a way I can see that a pimp would not want any damage occurring to his property legalisation or no legalisation. She stated her case with first hand accounts, why don’t you state your with some evidence instead of getting angry.
Wonderful topic, but a horrible debate. Too few sensible arguments that are not anecdotal or merely emotional.
I agree, but the opposition has more data and statistics overall.
Excellent speech
Excellent speech! You would expect it to go without saying but since it needed to be debated...
What sex worker did and date that broke her lesbian heart😂
Just look at reaction of Thylmann ,so rude(
It is unfortunate to see how Ms O'Brien dissimulates what the data she cites actually measures. By referring to the Gender Inequality Index (GII) in the context of the Nordic model of illegalising prostitution, she implies that prostitution-related violence against women would be lower in the Nordic countries than in other, broadly comparable Western jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, the truth is that the GII does not measure prostitution-related violence against women. In fact, it does not measure violence against women at all (but female health, education, and participation in the labour market and in politics). The limited international data on violence against women which does exist is quite inconsistent due to differences in national crime recording, as well as probably in reporting culture. Nonetheless, it does not seem to bear out Ms O'Brien's argument that Germany somehow had a much more significant problem with violence against women than the Nordic countries.
What is even more unfortunate is that Ms O'Brien is from a country where there has been a change in legislation, which should have produce some data more conducive to rational argument than the - no doubt harrowing - anectodes she relies on.
+HK47 oh well lucky the LSE did: www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf
I agree with the Nordic model!
The Nordic model has been thoroughly discredited in the scientific literature. In every country that has adopted this model, the vast majority of sex workers consistently report that they feel less safe and suffer more abuses. The scientific consensus of experts all around the world is that full decriminalization of sex work is the only viable model that improves safety and health of sex workers. The Nordic model is grounded entirely in ideology, not science. In science, one must investigate all of the available evidence and a draw conclusion concordant with that evidence. In an ideology, one already has a predetermined conclusion for which they seek out supporting evidence while ignoring the inconvenient evidence.
@@SiberianExpress2007 many of the so called "sex workers" are privilaged liberal feminists, funded by pimps criminal money. Of course they talk against the Nordic model. The Nordic model is logical, scientific and most importantly facts support it. Where did you draw this conclusion of yours, can you show your "evidence"?
@@lachusity There is nothing logical and scientific in the Nordic model.
wow what an argument lol@@Agamemnon-oy9qt
WoW! She really had good arguments, totally destroyed the pro side. The Nordic model is the best!
Meta-analyses, including this one, consistently find that decriminalization is the model that affords sex workers the most safety and negotiating power while the Nordic model endangers them. This conclusion is endorsed by numerous scientific organizations including the World Health Organization, The British Medical Journal, The Lancet, Amnesty International, and many others. The Nordic model is an ideologically motivated framework that is based on no evidence and is defended against all evidence.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30532209/
@@SiberianExpress2007
Thank you for the calm talk.
That study reinforces the usefulness of one side of the Nordic model, as it also decriminalizes prostitutes, which is proved to be effective. Furthermore the study does not evaluate the Nordic model fully, as a hybrid system at all, so the claim "the Nordic model endangers them" is not substantiated.
Thirdly, most importantly, the Nordic model's biggest asset is that it reduces demand besides decriminalization of prostitutes, which logically reduces the number of trafficked abused victims. This effect is recorded and well supported over many studies, while there is no scientific study to oppose this.
The Amnesty International and such are relying on the opinion of sexworker organisations that are proved to be linked to human traffickers and pushing criminal pimp agenda.
Not surprisingly, the adoption of the Nordic model is currently highly represented in new EU directives and the most developed countries (in gender equality and welfare).
@@SiberianExpress2007 Here, I have a study that actually considers and compares the different policies.
Evidence and scientific literature overwhelmingly support that full criminalization, full decriminalization and legalization are all worse compared to the Nordic model.
Mathieson, A., Branam, E., & Noble, A. (2015). Prostitution policy: legalization, decriminalization and the Nordic model. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 14, 367.
The Nordic model, (or better labelled the "men are disgusting" model) invalidation the male sexual experience and stimulates the very violence that we all want eradicated. Decriminalisation of sex work while we fix poverty through education.
@@recklessroges Calling names is not an argument, sorry.
This speaker isn't arguing for gender equality. She is discarding 100% of male sexual desire and replacing it with 100% her own desire, (which may be what most women want, but it isn't what all women want.) The invalidation of the male experience stimulates the violence that we all {should} want eradicated.
I'm on the side of Six Workers. Cute accent.
Ivan Gartenhaus is it from new zealand?
Peter Boch I think so.