Brazil to U.S.: Keep Your Money

Remove all ads!

Here's the article.

 

If you're trying to halt the spread of a (mostly) STD, prostitution probably is something you want to crack down on. Or so I assume.

 

The US have every right to couple their aid to conditions. The point is that 'aid' with a catch something elese, and more aimed on enforcing US policies worldwide rather than on actually helping the people.

Outlawing prostitution doesn't get world's oldest profession out of the world. As prostitutes don't really do this sort of job because they like it criminalising them won't change their situation a yota.

Probably in a perfect no-sex-until-marriage & eternal-fidelity there would barely be STD. As STD mostly are spread through people having changing partners in intercourse, prostitutes per se are a good place to start propagating prevention. The Brazilians are being pragmatic.

[ May 15, 2005, 15:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Let's face it: as Ragusa said, in the world of no premarital sex and total fidelity, there would be next to no STDs. In our less than perfect world, people don't get STDs because they had a couple of relationships that didn't work out and they moved on. STDs come from shagging like bunnies with little exception, such as getting AIDS from a syringe and giving it to one's partner.

So, what's the best "protection"? Fidelity.

But outlawing prostitution and being happy with our oh-so-holy morals isn't the way to do that. If it's going to work, we need a wider programme, covering everything: sexual abuse, teen sex, promiscuity, cheating, poor hygiene... everything.

 

Well, in Africa one of the prevalent ways to get AIDS, considering the scale of the pandemy there and the birth rate, is inheriting the incurable disease AIDS from your infected mother - that's the part left out by the 'it's all about sex' theory.

That's no more so once a disease like AIDS has grown to a certain extent. Unlike syphilis, AIDS is now a worldwide pandemy because there is no cure. In Africa for instance, AIDS is threatening the stability of entire nations.

However, I agree with you on the nonsense of outlawing.

 

Good for Brazil. They don't like the terms, they say no thank you and don't take the money. I wish more nations would be like that. Money is a key part of U.S. foreign policy. I'd rather not see us waste it with nations that take it and then ignore our best interests.

 

Agreed. What I dislike about the whole thing isn't that the US couple their aid with demands - considering how corrupt some regimes are that's just prudent.

So what I dislike is that the demands are coupled with a certain ideology, and not oriented at the actual needs of the people the help is intended for.

Depending on how urgent the need is some countries don't have the choice to refuse the aid, they just can't afford to say 'No, thank you!' so that the conditions practically become an ideological blackmail.

That is to say, I doubt that it is not in the best interest of the US that there are prostitutes in Brazil.

 

Well not really. In many cases in Africa HIV spreads so fast because it's generally unknown and untreated. It has spread itself so widely that there are entire families carrying the disease never knowing of it before it's too late. Of course I have no way of knowing what exactly you mean by "shagging like bunnies" but I do not consider having two to three sex partners in lifetime to be "shagging like bunnies" but in many African countries you have very high odds of getting HIV even with only a couple of sex partners during lifetime.

Fidelity most certainly is the best solution but it's not the only solution but it's not the only solution and even the most effective solution when it comes to larger groups. Most won't follow it no matter what kind of education you have and therefore offering free condoms and sexual education about their usage is more effective.

EDIT: About Brazil's decicions. I'm not sure what to think. I don't think anything would be lost by forbidding prostitution and they sure could use that money. On the other hand I don't know what good the banning of prostitution would do. Neither do I understand why the USA required such a thing. Because of the increasing sex tourism from US to Brazil perhaps?

 

The mother got it from somewhere, didn't she?

As for outlawing prostitution... well, it's not like I'm appreciative of the business. Not like I believe that the fact that it will persist in the underground is enough of a reason to allow it in the open. Neither do I believe that it should be given an equal status with honest work. But cracking down on prostitutes will never solve the problem. One needs to crack down on pimps. And even this won't be successful without cracking down on the johns somehow. For each fallen woman, there are two guilty men: the pimp and the john.

As for Brazil, I don't like the idea of elevating prostitution so much as they seem to be doing. Let's face it, it's low. And it surely should never be seen as anything key or top importance in a country's economy or whatever. Next, if they condemned prostitution, they wouldn't necessarily be required to spend time tracking every single one of them. Was publicly stating that prostitution is wrong everything that was required or were there additional strings attached?

Sex workers are a key target in the education programme... so what? There shouldn't be any sex workers in a healthy society in the first place. Who's going to benefit from sex workers being educated? Surely not the faithful husbands...

Not opposing promiscuity doesn't really help fighting AIDS oh so much, as, after all, promiscuity is the most frequent cause of AIDS.

[ May 16, 2005, 00:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And I am talking about her son and daughter, who, if they get old enough ever, will hand it over to their children, too. Infected parents will conceive infected children.

In Africa AIDS is around in the second generation already, that means that even with perfectly monogamous sex, fidelity and no sex until marriage - they are screwed anyway.

Morgoth is quite right when he writes 'In many cases in Africa HIV spreads so fast because it's generally unknown and untreated. It has spread itself so widely that there are entire families carrying the disease never knowing of it before it's too late.'

You're simply underestimating the scale of AIDS in the pandemy areas, Chev.

 

When adequate education and preventive/contraceptive materials are available, prostitutes are generally very concerned about avoiding STDs. After all, it's their livelihood; it makes sense that they would secure it as far as possible.

I know this is true for most developed nations; I am unsure how accurate it is in Brazil, but would venture to suggest that it is primarily a problem in poorer areas and communities where prevention cannot be afforded. Again, this is why health education and humanitarian assistance is so important... but that doesn't give political advantage or big business a developmental foothold, so screw it.

This would only be true if everyone held to your beliefs, Chev.

The truth is that prostitution has existed in just about every society in history and meets a demand. No demand, no prostitutes. Since that's not going to happen in the near future, especially in impoverished areas, prevention of the spread of transmissible infection is infinitely preferable to taking a moral high-ground stance. Work on eliminating the need for it; in the meantime, try to stop the damage from worsening.

 

Correct, but doing anything about prostitution won't affect these people at all, will it?

Well, the fact that promsicuity is the chief cause of AIDS spread is quite objective.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

They should abstain from sex if the partner isn't infected. Even a 1-3% (as is often claimed, contrary to harsh reality) chance of infection attached to each intercourse, with 33 to 100 intercourses infection is a given, mathematically. This is homicide.

Plus, prostitution regulations don't affect them if they are monogamous.

 

Chevallier,
really, your smugness it misplaced, and actually I find it simply irresponsible and unjust to the AIDS victims. You don't seem to grasp the problem. Your easy 'just don't have sex' proposal is a slap in the face, and fails to adress the actual problem.

What about prostitution driven by poverty and prostitutes getting pregnant and giving birth to infected children? That is actually the norm in third world countries that prostitutes get pregnant, too.

To abstain from sex if the partner isn't infected, as you cunningly suggest, requires them knowing wether they are infected or not. Speak about getting an AIDS test in a slum or third world backwater bush.

A CD4 AIDS test costs some $ 88,-- at John Hopkins Hospital, and a viral load test costs some $ 152,--. A newer and cheaper p24 test comes in at some $ 24,--. Even that sum could feed a family in an african slum for about a month at least.

Diagnosis is expensive, and as immediate survival comes first getting fed every day is a priority.

Based on the antenatal data, a study estimates that 5.6 million South Africans were HIV positive at the end of 2003, of whom 55% were female and 96,228 were babies.

Testing them all with the cheapest p24 test would still cost some $ 134.000.000,--.

Oh yes, and poverty driven prostitution would require such tests on a regular basis, resulting in mounting costs.

As to fight poverty driven prostitution would require eliminating poverty, which is practically utopical, it is smarter and faster to simply teach prostitutes about AIDS and persuade them to insist on condoms, though sure toughluck will disagree here

As prostitution is need and demand driven, talking with the prostitutes is a pragmatic approach. The Brazilian rebuttal to the US is only sensible.

Propagating fidelity and monogamy instead is like trying to hold off a rainstorm with a cocktail paper umbrella.

[ May 16, 2005, 16:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Obviously, the US didn't feel that Brazil was doing enough to curb prostitution. Most responsible governments oppose prostitution and have programs aimed at the practice. I'd say the US simply thinks that its money will be wasted if they give it and Brazil continues doing things as it is now. I'd say programs aimed at getting hookers off the streets and into schools, safer jobs, and drug rehab are a good way of "cracking down" on prostitution that also would stop the spread of AIDS.

 

So what the US wants is for Brazil to say "prostitution is bad" and thats it?

The Brazilians are keeping their eyes open and by educating everyone including prostitutes are trying to spread awareness of proper care/precaution at the grass roots level. What would be the use of banning prostitution or otherwise demeaning prostitutes in the fight against AIDS? You simply drive them underground and away from approaching/trusting government programs and officials. And when they go lax in condom usage because the customer doesn't carry one, what is going to happen?

Somethings that the government of USA should emulate:

Instead what it (and the Catholic Church, but thats another forum) does is to encourage abstinance over educating people about condom usage. Where has that worked?

The US has also stood behind pharma companies on their right to expect profits on AIDS drugs. Should non-developed countries simply allow their people to die as they cant afford to pay the exhorbitant prices. There has to be a middle ground where the people who will need these drugs should be able to afford them without killing the drug companies bottomlines.

Isn't the government of US irresponsible in asking that countries bow to its internal policies if they wish for its support? If you are giving aid, give aid. If you want to educate, educate. But don't preach.

 

It primarily would have been a bad deal for Brazil, so it's only most common sense to not accept that money. How much would "condemnation of prostituion" cost the state of Brazil. More police, more judges, more jails, more crime, more families without income... 100 millions, 200 millions, 300 millions.... Not to forget the human cost. More slave trade, more abuse, more rape, more criminality, more sexually transmitted deseases (incl. AIDS). A very bad deal, indeed.

 

Well, this is true. It's also true that murder, theft, and so on have existed in every society in history. You can never eliminate those, either (at least, not without truly draconian measures that are far worse than the problem, and even then...).

IMO, the way to go about "fighting prostitution" is not to arrest/imprison/fine the prostitutes themselves, but to hit the pimps and "clients" with hard fines and hard time. Reducing demand, as it were.

It isn't as though doing that and working on education are mutually exclusive, either. Do both. Note: that's not from a "let's get USaid" perspective but from a "let's improve our society" perspective.