Brazil to U.S.: Keep Your Money
 

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/21965/

Brazil has rejected $40 million in U.S. funds for fighting AIDS because of demands that it condemn prostitution, a key participant in its flagship AIDS program. The move is seen by some observers as a rejection of Washington's head-in-the-sand linkage of neo-con morality and foreign aid.

''Biblical principles [are] their guide, not science," Pedro Chequer, director of Brazil's AIDS program told media outlets on Wednesday. "This premise is inadequate because it hurts our autonomous national policy."

Acting in accordance with a 2003 federal law, U.S. Congress demanded that Brazil publicly condemn prostitution before accepting the funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. Prostitution is a legal industry in Brazil and a key civic player in fighting the spread of HIV/AIDS.

...more...

good on them.

Wanting them to ban prostitution isn't *only* based on religious premise but *duh* scientifically proven to reduce AIDS cases.

I hate how people make everything religious. Taking the religious aspect out of it, not having sex with 10-20 people a day (or with people who have sex with other people every day) reduces your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

So yeah, I think that if you're going to accept money from us to reduce AIDS, you need to revamp your policy allowing prostitution. It's cool if you don't want the money, you're not hurting *my* feelings any.

And remind me not to sleep with any Brazilians.

er...really? Where. How exactly do you stop it anyway?

.....

One of the best ways to avoid contracting an STD is to not engage in sexual behavior with multiple partners.

Where are you going with this, Jag?

If I may Jaguar?

Prohibition

OK, since I'm completely lost, I'll just quit now.

i'm not really in favor of waging combat on prostitution, but maybe if it wasn't quite so widespread and a large part of your tourist draw, you wouldn't have quite as many folks swapping DNA... just a thought.

Why are we giving money to Brazil anyway? Let Brazil fight its own AIDS problem and put that $40M to work right here in America.

Dude, like, where's my car?

beestie has the right idea. we can use the $40MM to test any Brazilians who want to come to the US. let them figure out their own HIV solutions. what have they ever given us? other than the thong. and the brazilian bikini wax. and LOTS of beautiful women. with sexy accents. now that i think of it, maybe we could spend that $40MM to search their nation and help their clean, non-whore, beauties move to the US... arizona would be a good place for them i guess.

Brazil to U.S.: Keep Your Money

U. S. to Brazil: Keep Your AIDS

I think the point is that a legalized prostitution industry can be regulated. Regular testing for STD's with guidelines (condoms, dental dams only) etc. will result in a safer sexual enviroment then if you ban prostitution which will just cause the problem to go underground and beyond any control.

You still have people that work grey and black market. Doesn't really work. Medical screening only identifies a problem after the fact, at which point, the infection has already spread.

http://www.health24.com/news/Plastic...-938,21663.asp

Silimed exports 65% of their products
The silicone used for eight out of every 10 Brazilian women who elect to have breast enlargement surgery, comes from Silimed, as the Brazilian manufacturer is called. Silimed also exports 65% of their products and is the third largest supplier of breast implants in the world.

Silimed is to open a new plant this summer, which will be capable of producing three times the number of silicone packs. This will send production up to half a million silicone packs per year. The Brazilians have their eye on the US market.

Silent is on the right track, you can't stop prostitution, making it illegal just makes it harder for them to get help and keep safe. At least with regular screen, treatment and promotion of the use of protection you can minimise the damage rather than moralising and pretending it doesn't happen. It doesn't make the problem go away but it's better than nothing. Very detailed writeup here. To quote:

So....you're saying a large illegal prostitution setup with not regular testing, no protection for the ladies, and no guidelines is preferable/safer then a large legal prostitution setup with the above guidlines (meaning any infections will be detected and caught on a monthly basis as opposed to whenever the prostitute gets tested, if ever) with a small black market? :headshake

No setup is perfect, but if you can mandate condom use on the johns in the largest catholic country in the world, I think that is a huge improvement over the other options.

i'm not suggesting that it be made illegal. it will continue no matter what laws are in place. since that is the case i think theat standardized testing, etc. is a good thing. but have you ever been to Brazil? maybe, just maybe if it wasn't quite so openly acceptable and pervasive in their society then you could lower some of the traffic, keep some of the miles off the girls, and hopefully reduce SOME of the possible negative DNA transmission.

Columbia, but not Brazil.

I would love to hear your plan for changing their culture and making sex for money "less acceptable" The catholic church has been trying hard for years, I'm sure they'd love to know too. :unsure:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...5&section=news

BOMBAY (Reuters) - Indian authorities have decided to close some 600 cabarets in the commercial capital Bombay, a government spokesman said Wednesday, robbing the country's entertainment hub of one of its major attractions.

...snip...

The bars are not illegal, but police say some act as a front for prostitution and had cracked down on them last year and arrested hundreds of girls.

But the closure of the cabarets was likely to render jobless more than 150,000 people across the state, including dancers, waiters, bouncers and security guards, officials said.

Bar owners and dancers staged street protests after the decision to close cabarets outside Bombay and they threatened Wednesday to step up demonstrations.

"The government's decision will force a majority of the 75,000 girls working in bars into the flesh trade at one go," said Varsha Kale, president of Bharatiya Bar Girls' Union.

"Most girls working in bars are the only breadwinners in a family. They will now be unable to pay their rent and starve."

once upon a time, in America, nobody could imagine a future where smoking would be looked at as a negative. now the smokers are crying that the world is against them. i'm not saying i want to villainize whores... but it isn't that hard to take it out of the advertising, take it out of sight. if someone wants a whore, they'll still call or go and get one. the person who just compulsively makes his purchase because the woman is right there, might not make the effort to go looking.

in the end, i don't really give a shit about whores in brazil, or their HIV problem... except for the fact that they seem to think it is appropriate to spend my tax dollars on their problem as long as we don't make any demands for change.

I think their point is: Do you think those demands will help the HIV problem? Or make it worse?

They're not asking them to simply take it out of advertising, they're saying the government would have to 'explicitly oppose sex trafficking and prostitution' which would be counterproductive to Brazil's program which as the article points out, is a model of success internationally. I personally don't think the promotion & legality of these things makes much difference, whether it be booze, drugs or prostitutes, legalising them simply makes it safer, easier and keeps the money out of criminals hands.

From the benighted orifice of our commander in chief:

From here: $100 Million in Abstinence-Focused Grants for HIV/AIDS Prevention Awarded Under President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

As President Bush remarked in Philadelphia on June 23, "I think our country needs a practical, effective and moral message*. In addition to other kinds of prevention, we need to tell our children that abstinence is the only certain way to avoid contracting HIV*. It works every time."

Emphases mine.

*A swing and a miss. Twice.

but.. but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout

Changes to a program that's already ? So they can be more like us?
We've also made trade deals that restrict other (poor) countries from producing their own generic aids meds. Doesn't that just mean that american tax payers are buying expensive drugs, from american pharmaceutical companies, for poor countries? Who benefits from this? [rhetorical]


I've never been to Brazil, do their whore ads look like this?
http://www.tobaccofreeca.com/_images/undo3.jpg

no - the majority of advertising is a hand on the cock, and the subtle "wanna f*?", or "ever F* a black girl?" - something along those lines.

the print ads are in the newspapers and phonebooks such as they are. not exactly subtle there either.

I think you missed the important part of my post so i'll repeat it. I DON'T REALLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHORES IN BRAZIL, OR THEIR HIV PROBLEM. but, if we are offering $40MM for a problem we didn't create for them, i think we can put whatever stipulations on the funds we want. see? the money, for something that isn't our problem is more annoying to me than the HIV problem in a nation that A) isn't mine, and B) has an open, public, and encouraged sex trade.

Do you really think that any world wide mass communicable disease "Isn't your problem"?

are you suggesting that i might be infected through a handshake? or by making eye contact?

i'm pretty sure that i've been told for the last 20-25 years that if i am monogamous with an uninfected person, don't use needle drugs, and don't make a habit of exchanging DNA with unknown people, i should be ok.

so yeah, i guess i am saying it's not my problem. not to the point where i feel obligated to send them $40MM, and then see them criticize the very people giving them the money.

but for the record... i was stating that their nation isn't mine.

and brazil can tell you to shove your money up your moralizing ass. What's your point?

moralizing? how so? did i say that prostitution should be illegal? hell, i think i'm the only person posting here that is able (or willing) to say i associate with prostitutes. i was responding to the notion that it was out of bounds to require some changes in their open prostitution system in exchange for $40MM.

i don't care who does who. i do care about the money. or at least the $.0003 of it that is probably from me. :D

I think you might have thought I was referring to you directly, you referred to yourself as part of America (we) so I used the same in return. How so? Saying the prostitution should be illegal is *exactly* the string attached to the money and (here the Brazillian governmnet agrees with me) the reasons for it are arguably moral rather than logical. I haven't seen anyone here refute the quotes and report I linked about the effect or legalization of prostitution on STD rates.

I'm leaning towards moralizing when 9 of the 11 foundations administering the $100 million are churches.

Is anyone disputing the right of the US to place stipulations? I just see people questioning the wisdom of the particular stipulations. Of course the administration can put any stipulation they like on it. That doesn't mean they should, or that people shouldn't question the choice of stipulations.

Damn right ! And I wish a lot more countries would. ;)

I guess the problem I have with it is this:
You are offering money to help with AIDS (or anything else for that matter) but in order to get that money you require that the receipient adjust their outlook/culture/morals/politics (anything really). If they don't change, they don't get the money.
So what is that money really for? AIDS research or foisting off your own view of right and wrong?

There is a drought. Water is scarce and some folks are running out of water. You are my neighbor and I am happy to share my water with you so you come over with a bucket. I start to pour some of my water in your bucket but notice a big gaping hole in the bottom of your bucket. I request that you fix the hole prior to my pouring some of my limited supply of water into your bucket.

Apparently, we are not in agreement about there being a hole in your bucket.

I'm not personally interested in debating whether legalized sex for hire raises or lowers the HIV infection rate. Those "with the water" think it does and they are not going to give you any until you fix the "hole." Its ok to disagree on stuff - but the institution offering the money has the right to withhold the money if it is of the opinion that there are simpler things that could be done to address the problem.

If it makes everyone happier, instead of thinking of the money as being for AIDS, think of it as the United States offering Brazil $45 million to make prostitution illegal. The price, evidently, is not high enough but there is a price at which Brazil would make selling sex a crime. America just hasn't hit the number yet. Of course, there is a limit to what America is willing to pay.

If I'm going to pay the medical bills for an alcoholic, then a condition of that agreement is that he stop drinking. Does that make me a holier-than-thou moralistic asshole? Ok, fine, then I'm an asshole. Again, this debate isn't about whether drinking caused the problems for which I am offering to pay. I think it does and since its my money, my opinion is the only one that matters.

Personally, I think the money would be better spent in Africa than in a country perfectly capable of managing its own affairs.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Brazil might be a straw man in a sham transaction designed to funnel money from the Feds -through Brazil - to the drug companies as a subsidy but who the hell knows. Everyone is so focused on turning this into a religious issue that they forgot there's really $45 million dollars floating around and someone who was expecting it (down the ladder from Brazil) is now not going to get it and somebody else is now going to have to pay for that.

Then I guess you're wasting your time.
Nobody disagrees with you here. The only thing that is controversial is the wisdom of the decision, not the right of the US to make the decision.

The US has the right to make stupid decisions. That doesn't make the decisions right.

Maybe at some point but Brazil seems to be doing a pretty damn good job fighting AIDS (it's interesting that when an acronym hits critical mass people stop capitalising it, I'm as guilty as the rest on this) all by themselves and have at least in recent history, been very pickly to US demands for anything - see the incident where a US pilot was arrested for giving the finger to Brazilian passport control who started taking photos and fingerprints of incoming US citizens in retaliation to the US doing it.

From where I sit this is no different to 'charities' that indoctrinate kids in Africa while they feed and clothe them, I've on more than one occasion been approached by those assholes, I've got nothing but respect for charities that do work (MSF probably being the one I respect the most), particularly in Africa but if you're merely doing it to push your agenda you should be named and shamed for taking advantage of the suffering of others.

Not giving money to charity doesn't make one stupid. Nor is not giving money to charity wrong. But Brazil is neither a charity nor a poor country dependent on handouts from wealthier nations. Its not like we are withholding food drops to starving Ethiopians until they stop worshiping idols.

Besides, if legalizing prostitution lowers the infection rate, then why does Brazil have three times the infection rate of Mexico (or of many other Latin American countries) where prostitution is illegal? Is it possible that the premise is incorrect? Is that a debatable subject or am I stupid and wrong for even presuming to ask?

I agree. There has to be a nexus between the decision to be charitable and the behavior or attitude that is connected to the other end of the string. If I am to pay a drunk to stop drinking than I do require that he not spend the money on alcohol. Or on food for his buddy who then reciprocates with alcohol.

But Brazil does not fall into these categories - they are a proud and self-sufficent nation that, as far as I can tell, are not in desperate need for international assistance - string or no string.

I guess you're interested now. And yes, it is debatable. In fact, that is the subject of the thread.

Personally, I think that legal prostitution with health benefits and regulations is a good thing. Complaining that unregulated prostitution will still exist is like saying alcohol should be illegal because there will still be poisonous bootleg alcohol available even if alcohol were legalized. That's true, but the legal stuff will be safer, for both customer and provider.

and if anyone disagrees with that they better start by refuting the very detailed report I quoted from.

All I'm saying is that religion *should* have nothing to do with this.

If Brazil wants the money, they make prostitution illegal.
If Brazil doesn't want the money, then no harm, no foul.

It makes "scientific" sense to stop having sex with multiple partners and not reuse needles to reduce your risk of AIDS.

Morals and religion have nothing to do with those basic scientific facts.

Now it just so happens that Christianity and Judaism happen to believe that you shouldn't have sex without being married and you should only be married once unless your partner dies, and that your body is your temple and you shouldn't be putting recreational drugs into it.

But the scientific fact remains that abstinence or monogamous sex (and no drug use if possible) are the best way to avoid ANY STD.

So although people are trying to make it a relgious issue, in fact it is not. It *is* a strings attached offer, and they chose to decline. BFD. Keep your prostitutes and AIDS over in Brazil. Thanks.

That's not the question. The question is simply does legalizing prostitution raise or lower the AIDS infection rate - all other variables equal.

I read the studies cited by jag and found the connection between the legality or illegality of prostitution to be tenuous. Thailand, where prostitution has been legal since before the AIDS epidemic, had the highest rate of AIDS infection in the world (outside of Africa). Only after the government made AIDS prevention a public policy matter with a massive budget did the rate go down. Public policy programs (awareness/prevention/treatment) are NOT limited to environments where prostitution is legal.

And until someone explains why many countries in Latin America where prostitution is illegal have a fraction of the AIDS rate of Latin American countries where prostitution is legal then I will continue to assert that there is reason to question the claim that legalizing it lowers it.

I honestly can't be sure what effect legalized prostitution has on the rate of AIDS infection and nothing I've seen in this thread other than a lot of wishful thinking, selective evidence picking and ignoring data that refutes the hypothesis justifies a conclusion either way.

The prostitutes and AIDS are everywhere, but in Brazil, the prostitutes get tested. Abstinence and monogamous sex are personal behaviors that cannot be legislated, and will never be successful on their own as a nationwide strategy. They are important parts, but they are only parts.

Does anyone know which came first, the higher AIDS rates or the legalized prostitution?

Sex with one or fewer partners is not a government strategy.

A government strategy - public policy - consists of many things: A media blitz about AIDS - What it is, what it can do, how one catches it, how to avoid it, how to find out if you have it and what to do if you have it; Free testing for anyone who wants it and not just sex workers. The male infection rate is FOUR times the female infection rate so testing only the sex workers is to miss 80% of the carriers. Testing everyone means that showing up for a test doesn't automatically characterize someone as a sex worker as it would if only sex workers were tested which has the effect of discouraging at least a percentage of them from testing. Free treatment for those without insurance. Its a public health hazard and the cost of treating the infected is far less than the cost of a rise in the infection rate.

These are just a few examples of public policy initiatives that could be implemented and have been at one time or place or another. The thing is, they are all neutral to the legality of prostitution. And since legalizing something tends to increase its likelihood, than whatever AIDS is slipping through in spite of the efforts to contain it will increase by a factor equal to the increase in post-legalization sex-for-sale activity.

In jag's examples, legalization was part of a much broader public policy and budget initiative but legalization gets all the credit. Awareness, Free treatment, Condom programs, a media Blitzkrieg, etc., etc., etc., are all just ignored as having a bearing on the post-legalization decline.

The tactic of legalizing prostitution to lower the AIDS rate is also not, by itself, a strategy.

Yes, and?

Who's saying legalized prostitution is all you need to do? Of course you need a comprehensive approach, which isn't "Abstinence or monogamy only" any more than it is "legal prostitution is all you need to do".

Alright, if we take everything else as being the same:

"Regulated prostitutes tend to be cleaner prostitutes. HIV-infected rates tend to be stratospheric among the nation's streetwalkers. In Newark, 57% of prostitutes were found to be HIV positive, according to a Congressional Quarterly report. In new York City, 35% of prostitutes were HIV-positive; in Washington, almost half."13

"In contrast, brothels, which are legal in 12 rural Nevada counties, tend to be comparative paragons of public safety. The University of California School of Public Health, at Berkeley, studied the health of legal Nevada brothel workers compared with that of jailed Nevada streetwalkers. None of the brothel workers had AIDS, while 6% of the unregulated streetwalkers did. Brothel owners had a strong incentive to police the health of their employees, since they could face liability if an infection were passed to a customer."

From: Bovard, J. Safeguard public health: legalize commercial sex. (argument in favor of legalizing prostitution.) Insight on the news. 11(9):18. Feb. 27, 1995.

it is also important to note the difference in the make up of streetwalkers vs. nevada brothel workers if you want to use that study.

these aren't $2 ho's. more than half of them work in the adult film industry. most of the rest are up their for short stints as visiting escorts, from such places as Phoenix. escorts for the most part have a smallish group of regulars and don't take new clients without a referral. what that means is that A) they aren't taking on endless lines of men from the streets, B) they are generally more career oriented and think about what they do as a profession so they are VERY careful, C) they make BIG $$$$ so they aren't willing to take chances with their health for a quick trick.

the average streetwalker doesn't fit any of those characteristics.

You'll also note that the rate for the unregulated street walkers was only 6%.

Lookout - yet the streetwalker rate was 1/10th of that of Newark. Secondly, how the fuck do you know that most are visiting for short stints and work in porn?

Yes, pity that is entirely unrealisitic and gets in the way of solving the problem. It is a scientific fact that if noone ever fell over then casualty rates would fall too but boy, doesn't that sound silly.

Beestie: Much harder to have the free treatment, screening, handing out of protection etc if you're demonising the people involved and they're stuck under the thumbs of pimps and illegal brothels. I never said legalization alone solved the problem but it makes the other steps much easier.

streetwalking in Vegas is very limited. In fact, except for a few "locals" areas, it just doesn't happen. most likely in Vegas they had to use the hotel bar girls as their "street walker" contingent. most of those girls are on the escort circuit as well. the community knows if someone breaks the rules. that girl will not receive any of the courtesies that are depended upon in that arena.

as for how i know? i already stated - i associate with prostitutes. i know these girls. i know the community. i am not a part of it because i don't make any purchases... but they trust me to advise them from time to time.

edit: if you want to know WHY porn workers would go to the ranch and places like that... guys who really like "ivana hump" or whoever, will pay BIG$$$$$ to take a turn on their favorite little starlet. if a girl has the chance to make $500-5000 in an hour for the doing same thing that she usually does on camera for less money - she does it. and some of the biggest adult stars tour for that very reason.

The fact remains, when comparing apples to apples, legalizing prostitution appears to lower the HIV rate among the prostitutes.

If that is because when it's legal it attracts a whole different type of girl, so be it. But what ever the reason, the stats. remain.

I'm not sure you can make that assumption, this was a scientific study. Obviously I haven't studied it but I don't think you can assume they didn't know what they were doing.

As for the situation in thailand go there, you'll understand. Even by what lookout is saying about Brazil, puts it to shame.

i'm sure they knew what they were doing. but the problem is that in Vegas if they didn't incorporate the hotel girls into the study they would have too small of a subject group for their study to be worthwhile. if they DID incorporate them, then the results would be skewed by the community standards.

I think they took the most organized bunch (brothels) and compared them against probably the least educated most vunerable bunch (jailed streetwalkers).

Are you saying that the "Hotel Girls" would be worse off (HIV infection rate wise) then the jailed hookers? :headshake

but would those community standards be there in the same way if it wasn't legal?

I only saw Nevada, did they actually mention Vegas as the location of the study? :confused:

it isn't legal in Las Vegas. all the legal brothels are in different counties.

Jinx - i don't know where else in Nevada they would have been able to find more than a small handful of non-licensed brothel prostitutes so i would have to guess that they did the study in vegas. just a guess though.

Any city of moderate size has hookers, so they could have collected data in Reno and maybe Carson City as well.

A friend of mine's brother is a cop in Vegas. He worked vice for a while because he looks like an accountant rather than a cop, as well as because he grew up in Broomall and has an out of state accent. Until they got to know his face, he caught a lot of hookers who usually pick up on the cop vibe.