Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 December 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 6

US female voter turnout in 1920 and 1924

What was the voter turnout % of females in the US presidential elections of 1920 and 1924 compared to the male voter turnout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.165.49 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The data on this is spotty because it was collected in surveys only. But it would be more accurate to look at individual states than the entire country, as numerous states already had women's suffrage before the 19th amendment. And most of the polls that were conducted at the time tended to suffer from extreme selection bias. One of the few good studies we do have was done in Chicago in 1924, and concluded that only 35% of women in the area voted in the first presidential election after receiving the right[1]. As far as government records go, for most of US history we have no idea what the gender breakdown of the voters really was. That, combined with the facts that there was significant fluctuation in turnout even without suffrage and states gradually implemented suffrage, Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections is hard to interpret. But what you do see there is that turnout of eligible voters is about the same from 1920 to 1924, which would suggest that women are voting at similar rates to men. We also have a study that looked at turnout in individual states, and lined them up according to when they gave women suffrage: see page 1170 of this. Keep in mind that this study is defining voter turnout as the turnout of all adults, not just eligible ones. What we see there is that the average turnout the election prior to suffrage is about 25% (so ~50% of eligible men), and that after suffrage it is about 38%. Assuming the male ratio didn't change, this would suggest 26% of eligible women voted (but once again, given the large fluctuations even before suffrage, this is hard to interpret). You can look online and find more such surveys conducted in different means and over different areas. It is unfortunate there was not a large, nationwide effort to find out how long it took women on average to take advantage of their new rights, until long after. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess to give a direct answer to your question: Anywhere between half as many and just as many appear to be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but we can't know for sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there were women voting (and even being elected to congress) before 1920 -- there was nothing preventing a state from choosing to give women the vote before the 19th amendment was passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest sunken shipment of computers

I've been looking up sunken ships and the bacteria that are found in them; and was wondering what the largest shipment of computers to sink beneath the sea happens to be. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you resolve these two conflicting studies?

This study from the CDC claims that 70% of unreciprocated domestic violence is initiated by women, while this study claims that 85% of domestic violence victims are women. These two claims seem to contradict each other, so which is right? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links you have provided works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the links provided by the IP. They now work, though no comment yet on the actual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the linked studies, but it's easy to see that the two conclusions you mentioned are not necessarily contradictory. The first claim is that "70% of unreciprocated domestic violence (presumably a very restricted set) is initiated by women". The second claims that 85% of all domestic violence victims are women. To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument there are 100,000 incidences of domestic violence. Let's say further that in only 100 of those cases did the victim not reciprocate. According to the percentages given in your question, 70 (70% of 100) of the 100,000 incidences would have been initiated by women, while 85,000 (85% of 100,000) of the overall victims would have been women. So it is possible that the studies do not contradict each other. To find out whether the actual numbers bare that out or not would require reading the studies and I don't feel inclined to do so tonight.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How can 85% of victims of reciprocated domestic violence be women when every instance of reciprocated domestic violence (ignoring gay marriage) involves one man and one woman? The only way I can see it happening is if men were much more likely to be repeat offenders with multiple women -- but in order for the math to work out, you'd need male perpetrators of DV to attack on average ~6 women, which is surely not the case. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Person 1 beats person 2. The first study says that if person 2 doesn't fight back, 70% of the time person 1 was a woman. The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless. Since the studies measure different things, they don't contradict each other. It's like saying "75% of all people prefer chocolate ice cream" and "80% of the people who eat strawberry ice cream eat it out of a cup rather than a cone". The studies both deal with domestic violence, but don't measure the same thing. Plus, as William noted, since we're dealing in percentages, we have no idea what subpopulation of ALL domestic violence cases are represented by your first study. --Jayron32 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless." This strikes me as impossible. Replace "reciprocated domestic violence" with "dancing". If we suppose that men only dance with women and vice versa, then ~50% of the people who dance will be women, precisely because every dance involves one man and one women. The figure might not be exactly 50% because men might be more likely to dance with multiple partners, but the 50% figure will be close enough. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

About 50 percent of the people involved in a relationship where domestic violence is happening will be women. But that doesn't mean that women beat men as often as men beat women. The two are unrelated facts. The second study merely states that, when a beating is going on, 85% of the time it's the man's fists and the woman's face that are involved. Why do you think that is impossible? --Jayron32 02:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not impossible but I don't think that's what the study is claiming. Here's (PDF) a link to the actual study. If you read the methodology section, you'll see that they don't ask people how often they've been a victim of DV, just *if* they've been a victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So? That seems perfectly reasonable that of all people who have been beaten by their partner, 85% are women. I'm not sure what about that figure seems unreasonable to you... --Jayron32 02:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused because it conflicts with the CDC report, which says that the majority of victims are male. This (PDF) law paper states that in most studies male victims are as common as female victims. But the DoJ is a reputable source, so I don't know who to believe... 74.15.137.253 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what the CDC report says. What the CDC report says is that when the victim doesn't defend themselves, they're probably male. Again, you're confusing "Person takes a beating" versus "Person takes a beating and doesn't try to hit back". In case 1, the person taking the beating is usually female, 85% of the time. In case 2, you have what could be a subset of case 1, and which merely states that in that smaller subset where the person doesn't hit back, the person who isn't hitting back is male 70% of the time. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. The CDC study only distinguishes between reciprocated and unreciprocated violence. It does not ask whether the violence when reciprocated was in self defense or not. So when the CDC claims that the majority of unreciprocated DV victims are male, given that ~50% of reciprocated DV victims are male (using a loose definition of victim to mean simply that your partner used violence against you, even if it was in self-defense), we have a contradiction with the Bureau of Justice claim that 85% of DV victims (using the same definition as above) are women. Ultimately, the studies don't ask whether the violence used against you was in self-defense or not, so neither study aims to find out the "true" victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sample differences. The CDC study analysed "data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health", which is a fairly narrow sge range - maybe this generation is anomalous. The stats at the Statistics Brain link gets its figures from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's possible their figures are based on cases of domestic violence which become involved in the justice system, and that male victims of domestic violence are less likely to report their abuse to the police and the courts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought something similar but StatisticsBrain actually also says "Percent of domestic crimes reported to police" which would seem to imply it includes incidents not reported to the police somehow. SB also mentions 20-24 year olds are the most likely to experience domestic violence. This doesn't make it impossible that 18-28 olds skew the results in a different direction, but it makes it less likely. In any case, trying to compare these two sets of statistics, particularly since we don't know anything about the SB statistics. If you want to compare them, you'll need to find out more about the definitions used, how they were derived (I presume surveys since they includes ones not reported but we don't know what surveys) etc. For example, I would note that the paper cited mentions that men are more likely to cause injury than women (although it doesn't seem that much higher). It may be the SB statistics are excluding some stuff with limited violence that doesn't cause injury from the victims. SB also seems to contradict itself. In the victims table it says 85% are women. Later it says "Percent of the victims of domestic violence that are women : 95%". A possible typo but probably best taken another indication SB should be avoided. If you want to do these sort of detailed analysis, look for something with statistics you can meaningfully compare not random stuff found from an internet search (or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's there original study. As you say, it gets its data from a survey (National Crime Victimization Survey) rather than from the justice system itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.137.253 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the abstract for the first study. 24% of relationships with violence - half of that unrequited. That means that we're speaking of 8% vs. 4% for women and men respectively, for violence as a feature of the relationship. Now the abstract for the second study concerns crime, and all methodological concerns aside, women pretty much don't get arrested or go to jail. If a cop comes in the door and the guy and the girl are beating the crap out of each other, he's taking the guy. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the second study (PDF) uses a survey, exactly like the first study. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take another stab at explaining what Jayron tried to explain. Suppose there are 1 billion married couples in the world. Every year, 10 women beat up their husbands, and the husbands don't reciprocate. Every year, 1 million men beat up their wives, and the wives always reciprocate. In this hypothetical world, the CDC study would read "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in 100% of the cases". The second study would read "Victims of Domestic Violence: Women: 99.999%". --Bowlhover (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me out, but I don't think that's true. Here's what I wrote above: "The CDC study only distinguishes between reciprocated and unreciprocated violence. It does not ask whether the violence when reciprocated was in self defense or not. So when the CDC claims that the majority of unreciprocated DV victims are male, given that ~50% of reciprocated DV victims are male (using a loose definition of victim to mean simply that your partner used violence against you, even if it was in self-defense), we have a contradiction with the Bureau of Justice claim that 85% of DV victims (using the same definition as above) are women. " The point I"m trying to make is that the Bureau of Justice study (PDF)only asks whether your partner has ever used violence against you, so it doesn't look into who struck first. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

historical events since 1913

My grandmother is about to celebrate her milestone 100th birthday. Im trying to put together a list of wordiode major historical events in the last 100 years from 1913 - 2013 can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.175.116 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You could start with our article listing events of 1913 and continue from there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's 'wordiode'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. “timeline 20th century” will get you lots of great stuff, including these:

• BBC British history timeline,
• Major wars of the 20th century,
• 20th century history,
• artistic, cultural, social, scientific and political events,
• 20th century inventions
• and (for fun) toys and games of the 20th century.

See also Wikipedia’s 20th century. Happy birthday to your grandmother! 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting things kept happening after 31 December 2000, when the 2oth century ended. See also 21st century, which included the 9/11 attacks, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring. the first African-American US president, the completion of the Human Genome Project, the discovery by robot Mars explorers that Mars once had water, the first space probe leaving the solar system, High Def and 3D TV in widespread use,and the spread of the internet and mobile phones to the majority of the world's population. Edison (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• What might be interesting would be to find a visible star 100 light years distant assuming she can see its light. The northern star Alkaid in the Big Dippe and the southern Alnair are each approximately some 100 light years distant. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still curious about the OP's word "wordiode". I assume it's a typo, but I can't work out what for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"worldwide"? Skipped a w, fat-fingered i/o. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Identifying wallpaper pattern

Does anyone know what words describe this type of pattern (so I can search for it in the form of fabric) --78.148.106.99 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "damask print fabrics" on a Google image search which brings up some fabrics with a similar pattern. Actual damask is a monochrome fabric where the motif is woven differently to the background. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Flock wallpaper. Very popular, at least in the UK, in the '70s and still notoriously popular in curry restaurants and dirty pubs. Nowadays considered naff (especially in private dwellings). If you put it up in your house, you too will be considered by any passing Englishman to be either some missing link from the '70s or irredeemably naff. On the other hand, it's probably considered the height of sophistication in primitive societies, such as Australia. You may run the risk that any passing Australian will mistake your house with its flock wallpaper as a dirty pub-cum-brothel, invite himself inside, and behave accordingly. I wouldn't risk it if I were you, but it is, of course, up to you. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bad redirect (from Flock wallpaper to Flocking (texture)). If I do an image search for "flock wallpaper" or "flock pattern" I see a lot of elaborate, abstract, monochrome, leafy patterns in wallpaper group cm, like the pattern the OP was asking about. Image searching for damask shows the same kind of patterns. The Flocking (texture) article isn't even describing a pattern, but a physical texture formed by random small linear particles that simulate grass or velvet. This V&A museum page says there is a connection, the wallpaper being originally made using powdered wool in imitation of velvet, but the term seems to have been transferred to a particular kind of typically Victorian era pattern.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@ IP 86.183 etc: Just for that, we're gonna beat your so-called cricketers 5-0 in the Ashes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what naff is supposed to mean, sounds quite twee. Neither of my sets of grandparents were alive during Victoria's reign, but both had wallpaper with this pattern, and my parents inherited a couch (on which my dog bore puppies) with it. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on the cross-race effect

Are there any remembered quotes by famous persons relating to the cross-race effect, particularly prominent African-Americans refuting the prejudice that 'all blacks look alike'? --KnightMove (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A different angle on it, I wish I could remember his name, but I recall a Japanese-American comedian some decades ago saying, with purposeful stereotyped accent, "Awr Americans rook arike." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

House of Lords maiden speech

Sometime in the 1980s (or possibly 1990s, certainly no later) I read about a member of the House of Lords who had given his maiden speech. The unusual thing was that he had been a member for many years and had never spoken a word in the House before. IIRC it was the longest time anyone had gone before making a maiden speech. The subject of the speech was water management, the need to save water to avoid droughts and so on. Can anyone find the name of the Lord and the date of his speech? Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron Trevor (4th, I guess) after 43 years? In May 1993: [2] 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly not, but thanks for trying. The subject of that speech was policing [3], the one I'm looking for was definitely about water. --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask Kittybrewster. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that Hansard resource. With the search string "lords water drought maiden" I found this possibility. Could Gerald Spring Rice, 6th Baron Monteagle of Brandon be your man? Maiden speech on 11 March 1992 after being in the House for 47 years. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I should have tried that search string myself; thanks very much. --Viennese Waltz 22:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! And don't beat yourself up. I tried several other strings without luck too; it's not an easy site to search because there is so much material. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I looked but didn't find anything. Lord Monteagle probably thought that he ought to get in while he could - I see that he was one of those excluded from the House in the 1999 reforms. Alansplodge (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Amish

Do any amish use electricity? Just yes or no, or elaborate if you need. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Amish life in the modern world. --Jayron32 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides the "yes" given in that article, there are occasional extreme examples; when I was growing up in Ohio, my parents knew an Amish bishop who was an electrician. The article's comments about solar panels, batteries, generators, etc. are definitely much more common among the Amish than electricians. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

However, it seems VERY likely that if the Amish are using solar panels and generators, as well as other electrical infrastructure, there would need to be some Amish electricians to keep all that stuff maintained. The Amish are primarily isolationist (that's why they don't hook into the electric grid, as explained in the article, NOT because they are opposed to using electricity per se) and it seems likely they'd rather have a trained electrician in the community to maintain their own equipment than have to go outside the community to find one. --Jayron32 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Har din mor lære dig at være så uforskammet, når du stille spørgsmål, IP 78?

Ja eller nej?

μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP was not rude. That is a personal attack. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP was indeed rude, then editted his question after I mentioned it. He clearly understood me. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Toron-trolls speak Danish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What are toron-trolls? μηδείς: Nej. Do you use translator? 184.147.136.249: How do I report him? Any admins here?/watching this? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP, who geolocates to Denmark, has given repeated commands that we answer his questions immediately, in yes no form, that we read articles for him, and so forth. He has claimed that just now on the language desk that he doesn't have access to google, and that the drugs he's on makes it impossible for him to follow these threads. Given he understood my Danish question and has answered in the negative, and because of it editted his question after the fact to be polite, I hope the barrage of rude demands will not continue. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He would have been better off just leaving his original question. Initially adding "Just yes or no" without any qualifier was kind of pushy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

One anecdotal example: There is this TV series on one of the learning channels, featuring a guy who builds tree houses. On one show he had some Amish youth helping him, which included wielding some power tools. They explained that their philosophy is that it's OK to use such tools, they just don't want to own them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the OP at ANI. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Urban Percentage of Germany's Total Population in or Around 1933

Does anyone know what percentage of Germany's total population lived in urban areas in or around 1933? I am curious about this, considering that Germany appeared to be (much) more industrialized when the Nazis came to power than in the cases of many other countries when extremists came to power. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Census in Germany has information on when official German Censuses were taken. You can use that as a launching point for your research. --Jayron32 17:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigate to page 59:11 in the 1935 German Statistical Yearbook, where you will see Germany's population broken down by size classes of municipalities. The 1933 data don't seem to offer a standalone statistic for urban population. Municipality size is an imperfect proxy for degree of urbanization, but you might consider municipalities with more than 10,000 residents (or some other arbitrary threshold) as urban. "Gemeinden mit Einwohnern" means "municipalities with residents". "Weniger als" means "less than", "bis unter" means "up to", "Zahl der Gemeinden" means "number of municipalities", "Wohnbevölkerung" means "resident population", "Zahl" means "number", and "vH" means "percentage" (of the total German population). Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This information here is extremely useful. Thank you very much for sharing this info with me. Anyway, I wonder which criteria Germany used in the 1925 and in the 1939 censuses to determine urban and rural areas (or did it only determine the population by municipality size in 1925 and/or in 1939 as well?) and which criteria Germany uses right now to determine urban and rural areas.

As for your suggestion of municipalities which have 10,000+ people being considered urban and the rest being considered rural, the 10,000+ number might be too high, since the United States's criteria for a place to be considered urban in 1920 was 2,500+ people. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of "urban areas" vary widely from country to country, so different countries' statistics are not really comparable. While the U.S. Census Bureau defines the "urban" population of the country as those living in either "urban areas" or in places with populations over 2,500, "urban areas" are defined by population density. In Germany, a place with a population of 2,500, especially in 1933, was likely to have been a farming village, not urban in the usual sense of that word. I checked the latest edition of the German Statistical Yearbook, and it does not offer a statistic on the "urban" versus "rural" population of Germany. Such figures as exist on Germany's (present-day) urban and rural population seem to rely on a definition (explained here) by the Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt-, und Raumforschung (Federal Institute for Construction, Urban, and Spatial Research) that divides Germany's Kreise (usually translated "districts", which are second-order administrative subdivisions analogous to counties in the United States) and independent cities (cities that are not part of a Kreis) into "urban" and "rural" classifications. Everyone living in an independent city or urban Kreis belongs to the urban population. The rural population is the population of rural Kreise. Kreise are classified as rural if they have a population density under 150 per square kilometer. Independent cities and Kreise with more than 150 residents per square kilometer are classified as urban. This classification, as far as I can tell, did not exist in 1933. To recreate it, you'd need to collect the area and population of all of the Kreise in 1933 and calculate their density to assign them to urban and rural categories, and then add up the population of Kreise in each category. That's a bigger project than I'm prepared to take on, but you are welcome to pursue it. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I found 35% for the 1870s and 75% for now, so somewhere in between those. Another important point is that there is an urbanised corridor through Europe, running from South East England down to northern Italy. Western Germany is on that corridor. The Ruhr valley, for example, is very highly urbanised, while Bavaria is still rural. So it depends "what" Germany. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

From where exactly did you get your data from? Also, I checked the World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision and see that it shows Germany as 74% urban right now (which approximately matches with your info) and as 68% urban in 1950. I don't know exactly where you get your data from the 1870s from. Also, by Germany, I meant all of Germany within its 1933 borders (which I know significantly different from its present-day borders in the east). Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I just Googled and an economic history publication that looked serious came up. There should be very good figures lurking somewhere for the 1920s, and even the 1930s but it would take considerable research to find them. Even then you might have definitional problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Porn vs. prostitution

In California v. Freeman and the related New Hampshire decision it references, U.S. courts found that making porn films was protected speech, but prostitution isn't. What I'm wondering is, how is this line being maintained in the modern era?

For example, I would think that someone who might otherwise sell sex could put out an ad, "partner wanted for adult film enterprise - be the star of your own porno film!" The customer would be expected to put up an investment toward the joint enterprise. Video taken at the site could be edited afterward for "amateur adult film" distribution, if it is any good, and the two could share proceeds from the sales.

Fundamentally, I don't get how a court can claim that there is a distinction between illegally paying for a performance in person, versus legally paying for a performance to be filmed for you; I understand the courts were desperate to timidly assert the First Amendment after a long absence, but can't they by now go whole hog and wipe away anti-prostitution laws that exist only to stigmatize vulnerable women, to make it difficult for them to find other employment, and to defend organized crime's control over their activities? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How does prostitution qualify as "speech"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the courts have been treating it as freedom of speech for you to pay some scribble artist to prick you with a tattoo needle. So why can't you pay him to prick you with something more suitable for pricking, like, say, a prick? The purpose of a tattoo is an aesthetic experience; what is the purpose of paid sex but for someone to experience a certain sensation? And in practice there is just something so degrading - contrary to dignity and privacy - about the notion of police punishing some poor girl for selling herself, as if she didn't have enough problems already. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When have the courts dealt with challenges to the right to wear a tattoo? (Maybe only if it said "Death to the President" or something like that) And I must ask again, under what constitutional argument could the federal government decide that state laws against prostitution are null and void? Keep in mind it is legal in one county in Nevada. Has Nevada's right to legalize it ever been challenged in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well [4][5] for example. Personally I can see the merits of public health regulation aimed at both groups, but as stated in the second case this isn't an excuse to ban the practice altogether. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The US Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban prostitution, as stated in our article Prostitution in the United States. The only federal laws regarding prostitution are related to sex trafficking. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, as with any other across-state-lines activities such as kidnapping. The question is, would the feds have authority to override the typical state-level laws against prostitution and somehow declare prostitution a constitutionally protected "right"? I don't think so. I can't think of anything in the Constitution or its amendments which would justify such an action. But maybe I'm overlooking something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How does making an activity illegal make it difficult for a person to do some other activity? RudolfRed (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's just that the assumption is that prostitution pays better than working at a fast-food joint. As to the question "Why doesn't the federal government revoke anti-prostitution laws?", they might be hard-pressed to come up with a constitutional argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• First, the distinction is absurd. But, First Amendment protections are federal, while anti-prostitution laws are state and local. There are all sorts of angles one could pursue, like zoning laws making it illegal to film outside a studio, or in a home, etc. The current policies are absurd, but better than they were before the 80's. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was trying to think of any federal action on the subject of prostitution, and the Mann Act was the first thing that came to mind. That's in the negative, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are both legal and practical arguments. The legal argument would be that distribution of a film is speech, clearly (in visual form). And the porn actors are being paid not to have sex, but to allow their sexual activity to be filmed and/or they are being paid for the copyright of said film. Since money was not changing hands for the purpose of having sex, no prostitution is occurring (debatable). You can also take a practical stance and say that since nearly everyone likes porn, and the porn industry has a lot of money, it will not be made illegal in the United States, even if the legal argument makes practically no sense. But once again I'd like to emphasize that in the case of porn, it is the act of distribution that is an exercise of free speech, not the act of having sex. We do have Pornography_in_the_United_States#Legality. Most of the arguments for making pornography illegal in the United States came down to obscenity, not prostitution (that is, they were attacking the distribution, not the act of creation). <personal opinion>Obscenity laws, mind you, are in general morally repugnant laws passed by overbearing nanny states that think they know what's best for you and will restrict your private life accordingly.</personal opinion> Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't let this go without giving a link to the Dinosaur Comics strip on this very issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one case in the US in which authorities attempted to equate pornography with prostitution, California v. Freeman. This case did not go beyond the California Supreme Court. A similar case was heard in New Hampshire in 2008. In both cases, the state supreme court ruled that prostitution/pimping laws do not restrict the production of pornographic videos. However, it must be stated that the rulings prevented the states from prosecuting pornographers using pimping laws. They did not forbid the states from prosecuting based on a hypothetical future law against pornography, although the California decision suggests the court would not have been keen to that approach either. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a basic question about First Amendment content-neutral restrictions and state law. I've heard (but am by no means familiar with) that some states have laws that set out strict guidelines about how pornographic films operate and they expressly provide exception from the prostitution laws. I don't know how accurate or common that is, but that's one practical possibility. Shadowjams (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And the first amendment protection is not going to extend to illegal activities, such as various types of non-consensual abuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I didn't put enough question in this question. What I'm wondering is:

• Do any prostitutes try to present themselves as filmmakers to avoid legal action?
• Are there any countries where accepting legal porn has eventually led to upholding rights for sex workers?

Wnt (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I used to sell advertising for a periodical that earned a significant revenue from "escorts and masseurs". There were all sorts of gimmicks in the way they described their services. I eventually had a potential client call whom I went to visit, and it was quite obvious they were undercover police, pumping me for information. This was back before cheap digital recording was available. But If I were still selling advertising like that I would recommend the same ruse to my clients. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)