Maine becomes first state to decriminalize selling sex(seattletimes.com)
seattletimes.com
Maine becomes first state to decriminalize selling sex
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/maine-becomes-first-state-to-decriminalize-selling-sex/
21 comments
The goal of the bill is not about bodily autonomy... The article makes it clear that the goal is to stop penalizing people who are very often victims (of trafficking or circumstance).
They are not trying to stop the trade, legalize the trade, etc... They are trying to make it so that those who sell their body are not 'locked' into the trade because they can't get a job, an apartment, etc. and escape the cycle of selling -> jail -> selling -> etc... Even if they get help, it's hard to continue your life if you can't find a job or sign a contract for a safe place to stay.
They are not trying to stop the trade, legalize the trade, etc... They are trying to make it so that those who sell their body are not 'locked' into the trade because they can't get a job, an apartment, etc. and escape the cycle of selling -> jail -> selling -> etc... Even if they get help, it's hard to continue your life if you can't find a job or sign a contract for a safe place to stay.
Decriminalizing selling sex is something social libertarians and sex-negative feminists can agree on. But the latter, unlike the former, don’t regard it as a half measure, or think about it in terms of “bodily autonomy.” They view the female prostitute as the victim of male aggression. It doesn’t make sense to punish the victim, but it does make sense to punish the perpetrator.
You’re responding to a poster called ‘ldoughty’, not Andrea Dworkin. Who said anything about sex-negative feminists (or social liberatians, for that matter)
As the GP points out, the fact that buying sex remains criminalized means that this is, indeed, a sex-negative approach.
This approach is women-positive, not sex-negative. Here's an account of the awful reality of when prostitution is fully legalised: https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-pr...
>adoptnordic
The nordic approach is a failure. Prostitutes are still marginalized, they're still stalked by police, and they still have to employ a great deal of subterfuge to make ends meet.
The nordic approach is a failure. Prostitutes are still marginalized, they're still stalked by police, and they still have to employ a great deal of subterfuge to make ends meet.
fdsio(1)
While I do agree the conditions described on that article are deplorable, I think the same kind of conditions would apply (if not worse) if prostitution was criminalized. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening.
Rich old people with college age boyfriends and girlfriends aren't going away.
Sex is still for trade and always will be.
I’m elaborating on his explanation that “bodily autonomy” (i.e. social libertarianism) isn’t the point of the bill. Lots of people—in particular, most women, reject the social libertarian view that prostitution is acceptable: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... Many of those people, however, would agree (like Dworkin) that the reason prostitution is wrong is because it is violence against women.
The upshot of that is you can get enough support to pass a law decriminalizing selling of sex (something social libertarians and many sex-negative feminists could agree on), while lacking enough support to decriminalize buying sex (which only social libertarians would support).
The upshot of that is you can get enough support to pass a law decriminalizing selling of sex (something social libertarians and many sex-negative feminists could agree on), while lacking enough support to decriminalize buying sex (which only social libertarians would support).
Thank you for taking the time to explain, I didn’t tie bodily autonomy to social libertarianism when I read your initial post. I could’ve been more constructive with my question/post, my bad.
the harm reduction approach actually satisfies both, but the latter group really have no purpose aside from “prostitution is wrong” and all the “becauses” are observations that will continue shifting because the goal posts only move towards using the state to criminalize transactional sex
[deleted]
[deleted]
This doesn't really work. It's been tried for years now in Norway, and prostitutes, while no longer defined as criminals, still have to avoid the police because their customers getting arrested means they lose money. And they're prostitutes, so aside from a small minority, they really need the money they make. Very few people become prostitutes if they have other options.
They also don't get the same legal rights that workers in fully legitimised businesses do.
They also don't get the same legal rights that workers in fully legitimised businesses do.
I mean it is certainly better though, right? Losing money is way better than going to jail. I'd say that is "working" even if there are even better things to do. Like, it would be strange to think "I guess it didn't work so no need to have bothered".
Its counterproductive.
Germany, Austria, Switzerland have completely legal regimes including brothels, and Victoria in Australia just advanced their legal regime (including brothels) into a decriminalized regime to acknowledge deficiencies in a legal regime.
The goal is harm reduction. Its not intended to be a solution for trafficking, the existing labor trafficking solutions are intended to be a solution for trafficking in the sex industry.
For (otherwise) developed nations to be just getting around to single sided criminalization is embarrassing.
Germany, Austria, Switzerland have completely legal regimes including brothels, and Victoria in Australia just advanced their legal regime (including brothels) into a decriminalized regime to acknowledge deficiencies in a legal regime.
The goal is harm reduction. Its not intended to be a solution for trafficking, the existing labor trafficking solutions are intended to be a solution for trafficking in the sex industry.
For (otherwise) developed nations to be just getting around to single sided criminalization is embarrassing.
I don't disagree with you on what should happen, but to argue that this shouldn't have happened as it doesn't work seems problematic as it is essentially dooming some people to jail while we continue to argue about and fail to get what we actually want. (And, meanwhile, not taking steps towards something means leaving the overton window stranded back where too many people think the right thing to do is "extreme".)
Did you mean to respond to me? Nobody is going to jail in the systems i mentioned
Experience shows it doesn't work. So long as it's an illegal marketplace you get all the problems of an illegal marketplace. Whether you go after the sellers or the buyers doesn't change the illicit nature of the situation. If you want to actually improve the situation you make the transaction legal and aboveboard.
That doesn't mean it "doesn't work", that just means it doesn't solve all the problems you want to have solved. Insisting this change "doesn't work" and thereby, what... should not have happened? means that a ton of people I don't want in jail end up in jail. And like, that's what you are thereby arguing for: you are saying this somehow doesn't work to actually fully protect people... so you'd rather the status quo remain and these people be charged with a crime? How about instead of saying "doesn't work" you say "not enough" or "what's next"?
Depends on whether they have a pimp or not, and how sociopathic the pimp is. At least in Norway, going to jail is a lot better than being physically abused for not making enough money.
That is so strange. Like legalizing drugs through allowing people to sell it but prosecuting the people who purchase it.
This has been considered.
You stop commerce by stopping demand, not supply.
You stop commerce by stopping demand, not supply.
Are you intending to speak generally, because there are almost no markets where that is the way things work. I can't think of any other market that is restricted purely on the demand side, and the few markets I can think of with demand side enforcement as a major component, they do so because they are at the limit of what is practical on the supply side, not because they choose not to enforce supply side.
It's true of illicit markets with a high ceiling for what buyers are willing to pay vs the requirements for sellers to engage in trade. People are willing to pay so much for drugs which are so cheap to produce that dealing with dealers does virtually nothing for consumption because rising prices inspire people to fill any gaps you poke in the supply chain.
I would say sex is not dissimilar.
I would say sex is not dissimilar.
1) Generally the way commerce is stopped is first it is moved via a regulator, then the regulator squeezes it. See the medical market for example.
2) Sometimes we must refer to King Canute and the tide. The idea of "stopping demand" for prostitution seems like a long shot.
2) Sometimes we must refer to King Canute and the tide. The idea of "stopping demand" for prostitution seems like a long shot.
Have you got an example of regulatory pressure working?
Drugs, alcohol, sex, abortion. You make it illegal and you get the same behaviour with a whole load of bad add-ons.
Drugs, alcohol, sex, abortion. You make it illegal and you get the same behaviour with a whole load of bad add-ons.
All of these things have been prohibited to varying degrees of success throughout history. Just because there are times and places where it doesn’t work doesn’t mean prohibition is a universally ineffectual measure. That’s a fairy tale.
Harm and demand reduction are great - though hard to achieve.
Have you got any examples of prohibition working?
Have you got any examples of prohibition working?
Parts of the Islamic world today prohibit alcohol without much fuss. I’m sure there are minor bootlegging operations here and there, but nothing comparable to America during prohibition (my adoptive family’s patriarch was a bootlegger whose sons worked for him, so I’ve been interested in the subject for a long time). Abortion was successfully prohibited in America. The whole back-alley thing is heavily overblown in terms of how common it was.
There are always going to be cultural factors at play. You aren’t going to succeed in banning something if it’s popular enough, like jazz in the Third Reich, or if you just don’t have the power to enforce it.
In terms of harm reduction, a tightly controlled black market can easily be preferable to legalization. Kind of like el Paquete in Cuba.
There are always going to be cultural factors at play. You aren’t going to succeed in banning something if it’s popular enough, like jazz in the Third Reich, or if you just don’t have the power to enforce it.
In terms of harm reduction, a tightly controlled black market can easily be preferable to legalization. Kind of like el Paquete in Cuba.
The Islamic world just replaces alcohol with khat and opium, which aren’t much better. I wouldn’t call that an example of successful prohibition.
I don't know how well opiate use correlates to the legality of alcohol. In theory, then, you could depress opiate use by introducing alcohol, but that doesn't mesh with what's going on in America right now, where opiate use is rising without any prohibition on alcohol. Khat's an upper, not really comparable.
There are other factors that drive the demand for these drugs, and I think we're in agreement that the demand can and should be addressed in large part by dealing with root causes. But sex, drugs, guns, abortions etc. have all been successfully prohibited. There's little human behavior that hasn't.
There are other factors that drive the demand for these drugs, and I think we're in agreement that the demand can and should be addressed in large part by dealing with root causes. But sex, drugs, guns, abortions etc. have all been successfully prohibited. There's little human behavior that hasn't.
> You stop commerce by stopping demand, not supply.
You can't stop demand. Preaching abstinence almost certainly doesn't work.
You can't stop demand. Preaching abstinence almost certainly doesn't work.
> You can't stop demand. Preaching abstinence almost certainly doesn't work.
And it fuels the Incel toxic subculture.
And it fuels the Incel toxic subculture.
Abstinence would mean no sex at all, when in fact all the buyers need therapy to have enough social competence to get genuine encounters instead of using force by money and prostitutes need ways to safely leave their “job”.
Buying sex is a horrendous, (socially and often also physically) violent way of exploiting (mostly women's) bodies.
Overall, it is a societal topic. As long as commodification of everything is the norm, bodies will continue to be commodified. There is no legislation that will make prostitution ok or be safe.
Buying sex is a horrendous, (socially and often also physically) violent way of exploiting (mostly women's) bodies.
Overall, it is a societal topic. As long as commodification of everything is the norm, bodies will continue to be commodified. There is no legislation that will make prostitution ok or be safe.
> Abstinence would mean no sex at all,
No, it doesn't. If you have to change the definitions of words from what is in a dictionary to make your argument work, it's your argument that is broken, not the dictionary.
And, disregarding your attempt to shut down discussion by shaming language, the fact still remains that mandating what sex consensual adults have with each other never works.
Legislating consensual sex is a primitive and regressive opinion, mostly opined by a few close-minded but loud and vocal puritanicals.
The government should not be getting involved in consensual sex between adults.
No, it doesn't. If you have to change the definitions of words from what is in a dictionary to make your argument work, it's your argument that is broken, not the dictionary.
And, disregarding your attempt to shut down discussion by shaming language, the fact still remains that mandating what sex consensual adults have with each other never works.
Legislating consensual sex is a primitive and regressive opinion, mostly opined by a few close-minded but loud and vocal puritanicals.
The government should not be getting involved in consensual sex between adults.
Abstinence means what I wrote. It means to refrain (= not do) something. In the sexual context and on this topic, this would mean not buying sex.
It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.
Oh, and you don't have to be a puritanical to think that intimacy for sale is a bad idea and should not be encouraged.
Once again, the problem is societal. If you treat everything as a market, you will get a society where everyone is treated as a commodity.
It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.
Oh, and you don't have to be a puritanical to think that intimacy for sale is a bad idea and should not be encouraged.
Once again, the problem is societal. If you treat everything as a market, you will get a society where everyone is treated as a commodity.
> Oh, and you don't have to be a puritanical to think that intimacy for sale is a bad idea and should not be encouraged.
But you do have to be a puritannical to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do to each others bodies, and for what reasons.
Anytime your argument starts with "sex between consenting adults should be regulated like this ...", step back and ask yourself "Do I really want the government in my bedroom?"
Because many the freedoms we enjoy today are because we kicked the government out of bedrooms. Now you want to invite them back in?
> It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.
Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?
You lead with slurs, what did you expect? You took civilised discussion off of the table, and then turn around and complain that others must expend more respect to you than you do to others.
But you do have to be a puritannical to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do to each others bodies, and for what reasons.
Anytime your argument starts with "sex between consenting adults should be regulated like this ...", step back and ask yourself "Do I really want the government in my bedroom?"
Because many the freedoms we enjoy today are because we kicked the government out of bedrooms. Now you want to invite them back in?
> It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.
Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?
You lead with slurs, what did you expect? You took civilised discussion off of the table, and then turn around and complain that others must expend more respect to you than you do to others.
> Do I really want the government in my bedroom
No, I want the government to regulate markets. As in, I want the government to do everything in its power to abolish the sex trade market and help people get out of the famously violent, dangerous and abusive field of prostitution.
> Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?
No, I said they need therapy (which would benefit most people, me and you included). The fact that you are misrepresenting what I said and turning it into polemics is uncalled for and unproductive.
> You lead with slurs, what did you expect?
Nowhere did I use a slur. In fact, the only slurs dropped were by you, which I pointed out to you and now you become defensive.
Moreover, based on your outrage, it appears that you think that mental illness is something people (or right now: specifically me) use to denounce or otherwise degrade others.
Please look into how you are doing the actual thing (taking civil discussion off the table) you accuse others of doing.
No, I want the government to regulate markets. As in, I want the government to do everything in its power to abolish the sex trade market and help people get out of the famously violent, dangerous and abusive field of prostitution.
> Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?
No, I said they need therapy (which would benefit most people, me and you included). The fact that you are misrepresenting what I said and turning it into polemics is uncalled for and unproductive.
> You lead with slurs, what did you expect?
Nowhere did I use a slur. In fact, the only slurs dropped were by you, which I pointed out to you and now you become defensive.
Moreover, based on your outrage, it appears that you think that mental illness is something people (or right now: specifically me) use to denounce or otherwise degrade others.
Please look into how you are doing the actual thing (taking civil discussion off the table) you accuse others of doing.
> Preaching abstinence almost certainly doesn't work.
Why doesn't it work? Do you think perhaps it falls on deaf ears? Could it have something to do with a sexualized culture people live in that is overwhelmingly more influential than perhaps one clergyman one hour a week? Does it have anything to do with hot blondes on Carl's Jr commercials munching burgers, or dancing e-Girls on TikTok? Have men been disempowered, emasculated, and humiliated in their rightful roles by feminism? Is it perhaps related to third graders getting sex ed, how to don a condom, and a fresh supply of hormones no matter what their parents think? Is it perhaps related to unfettered access to contraception for everyone, abortion on demand, and no-fault divorce that nobody cares about keeping a family together or staying with their wives to support them in sickness and in health?
Yeah forget preaching, that preachy stuff never works.
Why doesn't it work? Do you think perhaps it falls on deaf ears? Could it have something to do with a sexualized culture people live in that is overwhelmingly more influential than perhaps one clergyman one hour a week? Does it have anything to do with hot blondes on Carl's Jr commercials munching burgers, or dancing e-Girls on TikTok? Have men been disempowered, emasculated, and humiliated in their rightful roles by feminism? Is it perhaps related to third graders getting sex ed, how to don a condom, and a fresh supply of hormones no matter what their parents think? Is it perhaps related to unfettered access to contraception for everyone, abortion on demand, and no-fault divorce that nobody cares about keeping a family together or staying with their wives to support them in sickness and in health?
Yeah forget preaching, that preachy stuff never works.
> Why doesn't it work?
I dunno. I don't care either. All I know is that mandating what consensual adults do to each other in terms of sex never works.
I dunno. I don't care either. All I know is that mandating what consensual adults do to each other in terms of sex never works.
I have long advocated for this, and people always reject it out of hand!
Trying to stop demand for sex is a fool's errand.
Except nobody is stopping anything, and everybody knows it by now.
> This has been considered.
So has nuking the moon to stop communism.
So has nuking the moon to stop communism.
A bit like when usury used to be illegal. You can write a note (borrow money) but you can’t collect interest on notes from others
That is not a fair comparison for so many reasons…
How so?
well, in the case of sex-trade it can be argued that the purchaser is ,generally speaking, in a better state-of-living than the seller.
The reverse is, generally speaking, the case with regards to selling drugs.
it's a matter of which party is thought to be more greatly victimized, in other words.
The reverse is, generally speaking, the case with regards to selling drugs.
it's a matter of which party is thought to be more greatly victimized, in other words.
That’s a very puritanical view of the sex trade.
In New South Wales prostitution has always been legal, including street crawlers, and for the protection of the sellers it is illegal to be a pimp. The view being the women have agency but pimping is predatory
In New South Wales prostitution has always been legal, including street crawlers, and for the protection of the sellers it is illegal to be a pimp. The view being the women have agency but pimping is predatory
> In New South Wales prostitution has always been legal
No it hasn't. It was made illegal in the early 1900s. Street-based sex work was decriminalised in 1979 (Prostitution Act 1979), and brothels were decriminalised in 1995 (Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995).
No it hasn't. It was made illegal in the early 1900s. Street-based sex work was decriminalised in 1979 (Prostitution Act 1979), and brothels were decriminalised in 1995 (Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995).
"including street crawlers"
Nothing says pro women than using a term like this.
Nothing says pro women than using a term like this.
Well, technically the term is used for the people who are looking to purchase services, so I’m not sure what sort of judgement you’re trying to apply, but thanks kindly for your 2c - the point being that you can buy sex off the street in NSW
Street Crawler or Kerb crawler is the person looking to solicit prostitution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerb_crawler
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerb_crawler
Better look up who it refers to before you whip out the indignation
Ooh ooh is it guys?
No, it’s specifically the clients. Definitely predominantly men but it’s not a term for men specifically.
>well, in the case of sex-trade it can be argued that the purchaser is ,generally speaking, in a better state-of-living than the seller.
Maybe this applies to homeless street walkers. But the majority of prostitution I'm aware of (anecdotal, I know) is middle-class men who go to freelance call girls 10x wealthier than they are. The customer pays a several days' worth of his wages for 2h of fun. So I would say it can be argued that the purchaser is a bigger victim than the seller, considering the financial power dynamics.
Maybe this applies to homeless street walkers. But the majority of prostitution I'm aware of (anecdotal, I know) is middle-class men who go to freelance call girls 10x wealthier than they are. The customer pays a several days' worth of his wages for 2h of fun. So I would say it can be argued that the purchaser is a bigger victim than the seller, considering the financial power dynamics.
Is that true? Surveys show the top drugs as marijuana, cocaine(no crack), lsd, and ecstasy which are more party/social drugs. It’s not the “bad” drugs like crack, meth, heroin, or pcp.
And there are plenty of victims in drug dealing. People get killed all the time and lots of children will never see their parents outside of visiting them in jail due to mandatory min sentencing. In terms of race for federal convictions for trafficking and dealing it’s mostly blacks and Hispanics that do all the time to feed America’s drug addiction. There’s the whole drug mule thing where cartels prey on people to be drug mules.
And there are plenty of victims in drug dealing. People get killed all the time and lots of children will never see their parents outside of visiting them in jail due to mandatory min sentencing. In terms of race for federal convictions for trafficking and dealing it’s mostly blacks and Hispanics that do all the time to feed America’s drug addiction. There’s the whole drug mule thing where cartels prey on people to be drug mules.
> Surveys show the top drugs as marijuana, cocaine(no crack), lsd, and ecstasy which are more party/social drugs. It’s not the “bad” drugs like crack, meth, heroin, or pcp.
Surveys? As in asking people what they've used, and maybe how much? I can think of some reasons why prestigious/party drugs are well-represented there and gutter drugs aren't.
It's safe to assume that most money in drugs is made on harmful use, if you define harmful use even remotely sensibly. This is the case for alcohol, tobacco and gambling, and although there is always going to be more uncertainty around illegal products, you can be pretty confident it's the case there too.
This is why legalization isn't an easy fix. People running businesses that are harmful to their significant customers, know it. These industries will still attract gangsters in the sense of people that are OK with profiting from spreading misery, only instead of risking prison for it, they can openly build relationships to other powerful people, participate in lobbying etc.
Surveys? As in asking people what they've used, and maybe how much? I can think of some reasons why prestigious/party drugs are well-represented there and gutter drugs aren't.
It's safe to assume that most money in drugs is made on harmful use, if you define harmful use even remotely sensibly. This is the case for alcohol, tobacco and gambling, and although there is always going to be more uncertainty around illegal products, you can be pretty confident it's the case there too.
This is why legalization isn't an easy fix. People running businesses that are harmful to their significant customers, know it. These industries will still attract gangsters in the sense of people that are OK with profiting from spreading misery, only instead of risking prison for it, they can openly build relationships to other powerful people, participate in lobbying etc.
How else would you determine drug usage in a country? You cant just randomly drug test a random cohort of the population. anecdotally, i have never had anyone try to sell me any “bad” drugs.
thought to be is the primary achilles heel of these efforts
they assume the sex workers have no agency and give them no voice in these proposals, opinions and legislation.
“believe all women, except them”.
many workers are saying “labor rights and harm reduction” and that thinly veiled eradication and weighing differences based on power dynamics does.not.help.
they assume the sex workers have no agency and give them no voice in these proposals, opinions and legislation.
“believe all women, except them”.
many workers are saying “labor rights and harm reduction” and that thinly veiled eradication and weighing differences based on power dynamics does.not.help.
Could drugs be trafficked against their will and forced into modern life slavery?
(Hint: you’re comparing people to objects)
(Hint: you’re comparing people to objects)
It's a great argument for a comprehensive set of workers' rights.
If you insist on framing it as "buying sex is consuming people", then sure.
its ridiculous people still have a hard-on for the nordic model. they just think "how clever! we solved it ya'll!"
any effort rooted in the prohibition of sex work will harm workers, and these efforts are based on enacting their discomfort with men having increased access to transactional sex as a normal option.
this model simply exacerbates trafficking by removing one of the main ways exploitation is reported at all - by workers confiding in customers they've built rapport with!
it has to be harmonized as a labor issue, rooted in harm reduction.
edit: there it is
>“The point of this whole thing is to decrease the demand for commercial sex,” said Maine state Rep. Lois Reckitt, D., who sponsored the bill,
any effort rooted in the prohibition of sex work will harm workers, and these efforts are based on enacting their discomfort with men having increased access to transactional sex as a normal option.
this model simply exacerbates trafficking by removing one of the main ways exploitation is reported at all - by workers confiding in customers they've built rapport with!
it has to be harmonized as a labor issue, rooted in harm reduction.
edit: there it is
>“The point of this whole thing is to decrease the demand for commercial sex,” said Maine state Rep. Lois Reckitt, D., who sponsored the bill,
It's not ridiculous at all, just a blatant and obvious example of populist policy. Just like war on drugs or subsidizing demand to counter real estate price increase.
With issues where people go emotional politics often goes this way, and the social pressure makes quality research nearly impossible, leading to decades of populism like that with little to no reasonable discussion, not to mention decent scientific inquiry.
With issues where people go emotional politics often goes this way, and the social pressure makes quality research nearly impossible, leading to decades of populism like that with little to no reasonable discussion, not to mention decent scientific inquiry.
Decriminalising prostitution, providing support services to prostitutes, and making the buying of people for sex illegal is harm reduction.
This Maine law doesn't go far enough in that there's no provision for structured support to help those who are prostituted exit the sex trade.
This Maine law doesn't go far enough in that there's no provision for structured support to help those who are prostituted exit the sex trade.
who are prostituted?
assumes no agency, does your assumption assume the prevalence of independent people that are not trafficked?
assumes no agency, does your assumption assume the prevalence of independent people that are not trafficked?
Providing support services to those who desire to exit the sex trade broadens the options available to those in prostitution. It increases their agency by providing an alternative path, that is their choice to take or not take.
I agree with that, your original post was phrased in an odd way, I dont think making buying illegal is a great solution as making that part legal is also harm reduction.
Trafficking and abuse is still a big problem in Amsterdam. There's no magic solution.
Trafficking and abuse are a problem in Amsterdam. But there is good reason to believe that the problem is a bit smaller than in jurisdictions where prostitutes have to hide from law enforcement.
(There have been several studies evaluating the effectiveness of Dutch regulation, but comparing the relatively accurate numbers from the Dutch police force with the guesstimates from countries where prostitution isn't legal, means that conclusions are pretty soft).
(There have been several studies evaluating the effectiveness of Dutch regulation, but comparing the relatively accurate numbers from the Dutch police force with the guesstimates from countries where prostitution isn't legal, means that conclusions are pretty soft).
Yeah, the data is very lacking.
However, there's a huge advantage to a legal transaction in that if something goes wrong the wronged party need not fear going to the police. It's much better for disputes to be settled in court than by violence.
However, there's a huge advantage to a legal transaction in that if something goes wrong the wronged party need not fear going to the police. It's much better for disputes to be settled in court than by violence.
correct, a labor rights issue. just like labor trafficking is still a big problem .... everywhere.
tackling this as a commercial sex issue debilitates avenues for addressing labor rights issues.
tackling this as a commercial sex issue debilitates avenues for addressing labor rights issues.
Europeans tried legalizing sex work. It didn’t work.
Citation needed.
"Europe", even within the EU, also has a great deal of variation, ranging from effectively complete legalization in places like Switzerland and Germany to the Swedish model of aggressively prosecuting customers and countries where selling it is illegal as well.
"Europe", even within the EU, also has a great deal of variation, ranging from effectively complete legalization in places like Switzerland and Germany to the Swedish model of aggressively prosecuting customers and countries where selling it is illegal as well.
Sorry I should clarify.
Until the 19th century, prostitution was legal basically everywhere.
Since then Europeans have gone back and forth between kind of legal to kind of illegal.
It really does vary a lot. But the historical acceptance and modern ambivalence is pretty common.
Until the 19th century, prostitution was legal basically everywhere.
Since then Europeans have gone back and forth between kind of legal to kind of illegal.
It really does vary a lot. But the historical acceptance and modern ambivalence is pretty common.
The parent comment already mentioned that "Europeans" is too broad of a generalisation.
It would he just as unwise to claim "the US has legalized sex work" due to this headline which clearly is not about the whole of the USA.
> workers confiding in customers they've built rapport with
Everything I've read about prostitution makes me think this never happens. Johns just don't help prostitutes. "Pretty Woman" isn't a documentary.
Everything I've read about prostitution makes me think this never happens. Johns just don't help prostitutes. "Pretty Woman" isn't a documentary.
i wonder what happens if both parties claim to be the prostitute?
If they're both selling sex then they're both buying it.
i was imagining a dispute between the parties, with both claiming to be the seller and that the other is the buyer.
Would this come up that often?
It seems like an easier defense would be for the buyer to say there was no payment involved and hope the seller does the same to avoid having to testify.
It seems like an easier defense would be for the buyer to say there was no payment involved and hope the seller does the same to avoid having to testify.
This could create a weird dynamic where prostitutes are blackmailing their customers. Why are humans so weird about sex? What is the difference to a massage?
So you don’t see any difference between your wife giving a massage and having sex with someone?
Marriage is about exclusive sex, you can't make an analogy with that.
It wasn't me asked, but I personally wouldn't mind my exclusive masseur having sex with someone, but I would mind if he massaged someone else.
It wasn't me asked, but I personally wouldn't mind my exclusive masseur having sex with someone, but I would mind if he massaged someone else.
> Why are humans so weird about sex? What is the difference to a massage?
The original question.
I’m providing a case where massage isn’t the same as sex.
I wouldn’t mind my wife working as a professional masseur, having sex with another person is a different matter.
The original question.
I’m providing a case where massage isn’t the same as sex.
I wouldn’t mind my wife working as a professional masseur, having sex with another person is a different matter.
[deleted]
Can’t speak for them, but mine is an adult and can make her own choices. I trust her judgement.
You didn’t answer my question. Would you react the same to both?
Yes. I know some people are jealous types, or try to control what their partners do, but that’s not me. If she finds somebody else that she likes enough to have sex with I’m totally happy for her. More love is better.
The wonders of non monogamy and separating sex, love and sex with love.
There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."
Ask these politicians how they are respecting men's body autonomy. They will look at you confused thinking "body autonomy" applies only to women or outright get angry and say you are arguing in bad faith.
Ask these politicians how they are respecting men's body autonomy. They will look at you confused thinking "body autonomy" applies only to women or outright get angry and say you are arguing in bad faith.
You just sent ppl to go argue in bad faith....
Haha. That's pretty much identical to our "decriminalization" of drugs where we let people buy them, but leave the laws in place against those that sell.
This always cracks me up. The best part is, the same people who locked you up a few decades ago for bud are the ones making bankroll now on the “green rush” in all the medical marijuana states. My local dispensaries are run in the same manner the Walmart is, industrially. A fun exercise in futility is looking at the parent companies and looking at which billionaire or consulting exec is selling you 400% marked up crap. My point being: all it took were some good ol’ corporate profits to change that tune.
This is how you do it. The johns are the ones who create the market for prostitution. Prostitutes, many of whom were forced into it, should not be criminalized.
Jurisdictions where voluntary prostitution is legal to provide or procure, have increased rates of illegal sex trafficking compared to jurisdictions where it is illegal. Criminalizing it from the demand side has much the same effect as a total ban, while also protecting vulnerable sex workers.
Jurisdictions where voluntary prostitution is legal to provide or procure, have increased rates of illegal sex trafficking compared to jurisdictions where it is illegal. Criminalizing it from the demand side has much the same effect as a total ban, while also protecting vulnerable sex workers.
I just don't buy that paying for sex should be criminal. And it takes two sides to make a market.
Yes, but in many places the prostitute is not a side in the transaction. Google human trafficking.
This law will do nothing to combat human trafficking. The best ways to help human trafficking exist mainly in the places people are trafficked from, not to. Equal rights and access to education, suffrage and work for women is a good start. General societal development helps.
Go implement them there. In the meantime, do not punish the victims here.
Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced?
What's the advantage to keeping that illegal?
Demand doesn't evaporate because you declare it to be illegal. The sellers will still need to accomodate their buyers who - not wanting to be arrested - will prefer buying in areas where enforcement is lax with all the increased risk that entails.
What's the advantage to keeping that illegal?
Demand doesn't evaporate because you declare it to be illegal. The sellers will still need to accomodate their buyers who - not wanting to be arrested - will prefer buying in areas where enforcement is lax with all the increased risk that entails.
The article seems to indicate that the goal is to stop double and triple penalizing sellers in the industry. The idea being that those on the selling side are often victims (of trafficking, abuse, no other choice, etc.).. and after they get caught, they become 'part of the system' and can't escape because no one will hire a criminal, or rent an apartment to a criminal, etc.
Very similar to decriminalizing possession of drugs, or buying of drugs, but not the selling of drugs... Buyers are frequently victims of addiction, and ruining their life with criminal charges doesn't help them break the cycle
The bill is not about trying to adjust the market, or to allow/accept prostitution, but to help victims of the trade.
Very similar to decriminalizing possession of drugs, or buying of drugs, but not the selling of drugs... Buyers are frequently victims of addiction, and ruining their life with criminal charges doesn't help them break the cycle
The bill is not about trying to adjust the market, or to allow/accept prostitution, but to help victims of the trade.
I understand that argument for legalizing selling. But keeping the purchase of sex illegal means buyers will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment.
If their goal is to protect victims then full legalization goes even further than this half-measure.
If their goal is to protect victims then full legalization goes even further than this half-measure.
> But keeping buying sex illegal means they will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment.
This statement has the same fallacy that the following statement does: "Keeping child labor illegal means children will choose to work in places where they feel less safe from the law. This will make young children who feel they have no choice but to work in a factory operate in a less safe environment."
The very fact that a certain choice is legal increases the economic incentives to pressure people into making that choice; in contrast, removing a choice by making it illegal incentivizes employers to offer alternate choices that are potentially less exploitative. When child labor is illegal, employers are incentivized to pay their workers a high enough wage to support the whole family without children having to work. When the option of child labor is taken off the table, workers end up in a better negotiating position.
The same is true of prostitution. When people can make money legally off of prostitution, they will be incentivized to go into the prostitution business and hire prostitutes. When they can't do that, they will be incentivized to go into a different line of work, and create employment opportunities for women that are less inherently exploitative.
This statement has the same fallacy that the following statement does: "Keeping child labor illegal means children will choose to work in places where they feel less safe from the law. This will make young children who feel they have no choice but to work in a factory operate in a less safe environment."
The very fact that a certain choice is legal increases the economic incentives to pressure people into making that choice; in contrast, removing a choice by making it illegal incentivizes employers to offer alternate choices that are potentially less exploitative. When child labor is illegal, employers are incentivized to pay their workers a high enough wage to support the whole family without children having to work. When the option of child labor is taken off the table, workers end up in a better negotiating position.
The same is true of prostitution. When people can make money legally off of prostitution, they will be incentivized to go into the prostitution business and hire prostitutes. When they can't do that, they will be incentivized to go into a different line of work, and create employment opportunities for women that are less inherently exploitative.
No, that is an entirely unrelated scenario. People will not be flocking to buy sex simply because it is legal. There's plenty of free ways to get it. And paying is widely stigmatized as a result. They'll flock to where there enforcement is most lax (e.g. legally Thailand or illegally Dubai) and possibly where no one can identify them. If it was simply about reducing demand set a high minimum price. When a buyer is caught paying less than minimum price, fine them. It's obviously about something else.
>Inherently exploitative
Ah here we go. The real crux... moralism. It's exploitation at any price even if a fully capable adult makes the choice.
>Inherently exploitative
Ah here we go. The real crux... moralism. It's exploitation at any price even if a fully capable adult makes the choice.
The child labor analogy doesn't really match up here.
The parent comment is saying that if prostitution is legal but hiring prostitutes is not, then people will only hire prostitutes in areas where law enforcement is weak.
A comparable analogy would be that if laboring as a child is not criminally illegal (which it is not) but hiring children as laborers is illegal (which it is), then the people that hire child laborers will be doing so in areas where law enforcement is weak.
This seems to be both a pretty apt analogy, and also seems to be clearly true in the child labor case.
The parent comment is saying that if prostitution is legal but hiring prostitutes is not, then people will only hire prostitutes in areas where law enforcement is weak.
A comparable analogy would be that if laboring as a child is not criminally illegal (which it is not) but hiring children as laborers is illegal (which it is), then the people that hire child laborers will be doing so in areas where law enforcement is weak.
This seems to be both a pretty apt analogy, and also seems to be clearly true in the child labor case.
This has the advantage of curbing 'enthusiasm' of buyers too. It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal and what you're client's doing isn't.
> It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal
It's harder to combat rape when you have to meet client in a more secret place, and when you can't take a photo of client's id. So no, in fact actual sex workers hate nordic model since it pushes them towards more precarious position while declaring the opposite.
It's harder to combat rape when you have to meet client in a more secret place, and when you can't take a photo of client's id. So no, in fact actual sex workers hate nordic model since it pushes them towards more precarious position while declaring the opposite.
I expressed myself poorly. I agree that ideally, sex work shouldn't be illegal to either provide or buy.
But the nordic model is better that the criminalization of sex workers imho.
But the nordic model is better that the criminalization of sex workers imho.
That doesn't answer the question of why criminalise it at all.
By making the purchaser the criminal, you now have the additional problem of forcing sellers to take steps to assure their buyers safety, which would include keeping silent about the majority of what they do.
The solution is to decriminalise the transaction, not to decriminilise one party to the transaction.
By making the purchaser the criminal, you now have the additional problem of forcing sellers to take steps to assure their buyers safety, which would include keeping silent about the majority of what they do.
The solution is to decriminalise the transaction, not to decriminilise one party to the transaction.
[deleted]
> Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced?
It's the modern puritanism. They want to stop sales of sex.
"Because human trafficking" is their equivalent of "think of the children". Their stated reasons is not their reasons, its to shutdown discussion by shaming anyone who doesn't feel that selling of sex should be criminalised.
It's the modern puritanism. They want to stop sales of sex.
"Because human trafficking" is their equivalent of "think of the children". Their stated reasons is not their reasons, its to shutdown discussion by shaming anyone who doesn't feel that selling of sex should be criminalised.
There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."
Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.
Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.
i don't read a lot of really shitty takes on hn (though they have increased a lot in the last 10 years or so) but this is up there.
I wish it were so innocent. In reality it's libertarians literally hard for legalizing their prostitution startup dreams. These people would pimp their mother for a higher credit score, with their mother's consent of course.
The utterly debased logic probably involves something like "empowering" the sex workers to report only their least favorite customers.
Why is this a thing in America to begin with? Sex markets do exist no matter what and have been forever.
In Order to really get a handle on some bad side effects and improve everyone’s life, the first step is accepting reality and decriminalize it. Then introduce protection laws for sex workers and make them pay taxes, like everyone else. With regulations and getting real data every action can be tremendously more effective than criminalized (= uncontrolled) black markets.
Even Al Capone was ultimately arrested for tax issues, everything else was not provable in court
In Order to really get a handle on some bad side effects and improve everyone’s life, the first step is accepting reality and decriminalize it. Then introduce protection laws for sex workers and make them pay taxes, like everyone else. With regulations and getting real data every action can be tremendously more effective than criminalized (= uncontrolled) black markets.
Even Al Capone was ultimately arrested for tax issues, everything else was not provable in court
> Why is this a thing in America to begin with?
Probably the same reason why it's a thing in many places across the world, even in parts of "progressive" Europe.
However, I do also think that making this legal would help more effectively fight some issues surrounding sex work, such as violence, human trafficking, etc. I think this to be the case for drugs, too.
Probably the same reason why it's a thing in many places across the world, even in parts of "progressive" Europe.
However, I do also think that making this legal would help more effectively fight some issues surrounding sex work, such as violence, human trafficking, etc. I think this to be the case for drugs, too.
> getting real data every action
Libertarians Gone Wild in this thread lmao
Libertarians Gone Wild in this thread lmao
I had a roomate who was dating a former dancer/escort. I remember she telling us how the girls in the business were trapped in this drug - sex - money - drug - sex vicious cycle, some owed more money than they could make (which was a lot, at least compared to what I was making as an entry level engineer), so it was virtually impossible for them to quit.
But note that it's the drugs that are trapping them, not the lifestyle.
I do agree there is a problem with the easy money trapping people but I don't think that's enough to warrant making it illegal.
I do agree there is a problem with the easy money trapping people but I don't think that's enough to warrant making it illegal.
I bet H-1B workers in the US feel similarly trapped.
I was this STUPID roommate, once. She "was retired." To quote my ex, "I have an expensive lifestyle" — as she unretired herself and left me sick.
Never again — the Romans were right in stripping SWers of their citizenship.
Never again — the Romans were right in stripping SWers of their citizenship.
TIL there are legal brothels in Nevada, the IRS briefly operated one (through a Trustee) but failed to obtain a county license, and then was duped into selling it back to the original owner at a fraction of the price.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Conforte#Forfeiture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Conforte#Forfeiture
Yup, while they aren't problem-free they seem to be a lot less of an issue than the illicit stuff.
Also, here in Las Vegas outcall prostitution is quasi-legal. The outcall organizers make it very hard for police stings and the result is so long as they keep their noses clean otherwise (the old adage of commit only one crime at a time) the police ignore it. It's been a long time since I've heard of a case of trouble from it. (But I've heard of multiple cases of trouble from bar pickups in that time.)
I'm sure not everything makes the news--but that applies to both prostitutes and bar pickups.
Also, here in Las Vegas outcall prostitution is quasi-legal. The outcall organizers make it very hard for police stings and the result is so long as they keep their noses clean otherwise (the old adage of commit only one crime at a time) the police ignore it. It's been a long time since I've heard of a case of trouble from it. (But I've heard of multiple cases of trouble from bar pickups in that time.)
I'm sure not everything makes the news--but that applies to both prostitutes and bar pickups.
The weirdest thing in all this debate is that selling yourself for porn is perfectly legal. How is prostitution different is beyond me.
I've always been confused by that too, how does a camera being there change anything? Objectively, selling yourself and being filmed sounds strictly worse from the no prostitution point of view.
First amendment. It mostly comes down to obscenity, not prostitution.
Also People v Freeman, which makes the distinction that porn merely pretends to be prostitution, because whats actually going on is a business venture to produce a media product that just happens to include hardcore sex and the performers are paid.
Also People v Freeman, which makes the distinction that porn merely pretends to be prostitution, because whats actually going on is a business venture to produce a media product that just happens to include hardcore sex and the performers are paid.
Communicable diseases.
In a lot of major cities, prostitution is largely ignored. One just have to look at the plethora of sketchy massage parlors. It is rare that someone is arrested for prostitution. It seems as though law-enforcement and society have tacitly agreed that so long as it is behind closed doors and doesn't get out of control, people are free to do what they want.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of girls arrested each year and charged for it.
Meanwhile, prostitution is completely legal in the entirety of New Zealand, Germany (since WW2!), the Netherlands, and likely other countries. It isn't the proper role of government to interfere with consensual actions between adults.
Consenting adults should be free to do as they please
I tend to agree here, but there's a reasonable viewpoint that people shouldn't be able to consent to some things if they're assumed to be unreasonable or socially harmful.
For instance, we disallow the selling of organs. I'm all for bodily autonomy, but this seems reasonable.
At the very extreme case, one might say "I give you permission to murder me, if you provide for my family".
While I agree that self-direction and autonomy are essential rights (pretty strongly, in fact), everyone puts limits on them. For some people, the dynamics of prostitution might be that limit. It's not the case for me, but reasonable people might draw the line there.
For instance, we disallow the selling of organs. I'm all for bodily autonomy, but this seems reasonable.
At the very extreme case, one might say "I give you permission to murder me, if you provide for my family".
While I agree that self-direction and autonomy are essential rights (pretty strongly, in fact), everyone puts limits on them. For some people, the dynamics of prostitution might be that limit. It's not the case for me, but reasonable people might draw the line there.
> people shouldn't be able to consent to some things if they're assumed to be unreasonable or socially harmful.
I think this is the nub of it. When you strip away the BS, views on the legality of prostitution boil down to whether (safe) sex between strangers is (a) a harmful thing, or (b) a fun thing like a massage.
Discussions centered on trafficking or abusive buyers are a red herring. These are relatively rare scenarios. We don't close down eBay or Craigslist because of the occasional bad actor; we police the bad actors.
I think this is the nub of it. When you strip away the BS, views on the legality of prostitution boil down to whether (safe) sex between strangers is (a) a harmful thing, or (b) a fun thing like a massage.
Discussions centered on trafficking or abusive buyers are a red herring. These are relatively rare scenarios. We don't close down eBay or Craigslist because of the occasional bad actor; we police the bad actors.
Your reasoning is sound, but is based on this assumption:
> These are relatively rare scenarios.
I wonder if this is true...
> These are relatively rare scenarios.
I wonder if this is true...
We disallow the selling of organs due to the potential of selling someone else’s organs.
Should Armin Meiwes have been imprisoned for killing and eating a voluntary victim?
The best approach to these sorts of crimes is to prevent people from beginning down these paths and rehabilitation and removal from general society for those who are actively committing the crimes and harming society. governments can do a lot to help provide for prostitutes to bring them out of that dark lifestyle. In my opinion, if someone engages in prostitution, they’re already engaging in antisocial behavior akin to violence, and there must be no tolerance for it. Slogans like sex work is work only serve to hide the true degrading nature of selling one’s body for sex.
The transactional aspect is specifically to compensate for not doing as they please, so what are you talking about?
Engaging in a compensational transaction can please both parties.
Maybe, or maybe they are risking their life, health, and dignity desperate to put a roof over their child's head for the night and you're profoundly ignorant or pretending to be.
Most of the working class is selling the majority of their waking life-hours under the same circumstances, I suppose you see that fundamental foundation of our society as coercion and slavery too if you are consistent? I don't see much difference with a tech worker being coerced to spent 8+ hours a day building repulsive advertising and surveillance technologies to put a roof over their head. People sell their soul, mind and body in different ways.
> I don't see much difference with a tech worker being coerced to spent 8+ hours a day building repulsive advertising and surveillance technologies to put a roof over their head.
Really? When was the last time your boss's customers put their dicks inside of you and filled your body with semen? Your cushy tech job is a world away from prostitution.
Really? When was the last time your boss's customers put their dicks inside of you and filled your body with semen? Your cushy tech job is a world away from prostitution.
[deleted]
That seems less exploitive of labor. At least you can pick your hours, clients, sex acts, and pay. With the former job, you don’t have a choice anymore.
> Most of the working class is selling the majority of their waking life-hours under the same circumstances, I suppose you see that fundamental foundation of our society as coercion and slavery too if you are consistent?
Yes, but I'd choose another word than "foundation."
> I don't see much difference with a tech worker being coerced to spent 8+ hours a day building repulsive advertising and surveillance technologies to put a roof over their head. People sell their soul, mind and body in different ways.
Absolutely not. Your logic is vulgar. Transactional sex is a vice, so categorically different from software development. Furthermore, prostitution is a vice that undermines intimate sexual relations, both reproductive and otherwise. Family and intimacy mark a frontier of still-sacred relations that capital has thus far preserved in it's own interest. The nuclear family was wrought from villages as the smallest viable mobile labor reproduction unit. Society’s productive capacity straightforwardly depends on these sacred institutions. Software development threatens nothing of the sort. I can only imagine you are drinking libertarian kool aid, also a vice.
Yes, but I'd choose another word than "foundation."
> I don't see much difference with a tech worker being coerced to spent 8+ hours a day building repulsive advertising and surveillance technologies to put a roof over their head. People sell their soul, mind and body in different ways.
Absolutely not. Your logic is vulgar. Transactional sex is a vice, so categorically different from software development. Furthermore, prostitution is a vice that undermines intimate sexual relations, both reproductive and otherwise. Family and intimacy mark a frontier of still-sacred relations that capital has thus far preserved in it's own interest. The nuclear family was wrought from villages as the smallest viable mobile labor reproduction unit. Society’s productive capacity straightforwardly depends on these sacred institutions. Software development threatens nothing of the sort. I can only imagine you are drinking libertarian kool aid, also a vice.
Our worldviews seem to be so different that I struggle to know where to begin with responding to that. I don't see these concepts of "vice" and sacredness, it seems strangely religious
If you hold nothing sacred, I can only assume you'd have no problem pimping your own mother? Would you?
I strongly associate the strong desire to instantly label people with lower intelligence.
> The transactional aspect is specifically to compensate for not doing as they please, so what are you talking about?
I'm just saying that this statement is categorically false, in that, there are people who engage in sex work at their pleasure. You're dismissal of their existence, in fact, proves your ignorance.
https://youtu.be/cFSrxSBrgSc
I'm just saying that this statement is categorically false, in that, there are people who engage in sex work at their pleasure. You're dismissal of their existence, in fact, proves your ignorance.
https://youtu.be/cFSrxSBrgSc
[deleted]
Read this on another thread. Pretty horrifying on legal brothels.
https://nordicmodelnow.org/2018/07/01/working-as-a-reception...
Note, I’m linking the story not the Nordic model. I don’t have an opinion on that yet.
https://nordicmodelnow.org/2018/07/01/working-as-a-reception...
Note, I’m linking the story not the Nordic model. I don’t have an opinion on that yet.
Everything mentioned in that arictle isn't a failure of legal prostitution. It's a failure of that specific brothel and of the Australian government for not doing anything about it. In other words, those issues would be present even if prostitution was illegal. Legalizing prostitution didn't cause those issues.
Legal prostitution isn't a panacea, just as, say legalizing weed, isn't. It's harm reduction and it's the first step in the right direction. Smart policies need to be made and excuted.
Also the author says "The media glamorises prostitution and presents the illusion that it’s sexually liberating for women, and sex industry lobbyists claim that it’s just regular work. For a long time I accepted this without question." I have never seen anyone glamorizing sex work and say it's liberating. Porn, yes, but never prostitution.
Legal prostitution isn't a panacea, just as, say legalizing weed, isn't. It's harm reduction and it's the first step in the right direction. Smart policies need to be made and excuted.
Also the author says "The media glamorises prostitution and presents the illusion that it’s sexually liberating for women, and sex industry lobbyists claim that it’s just regular work. For a long time I accepted this without question." I have never seen anyone glamorizing sex work and say it's liberating. Porn, yes, but never prostitution.
This is what is described in the industry as "legalization" aka the Nordic model, not "decriminalization" aka the New Zealand model.
that's conflating some things. this is just the nordic model, not legalization.
legalization primarily has licenses, and is also frowned upon because its just parallel to a criminalized regime when not using the licenses.
legalization primarily has licenses, and is also frowned upon because its just parallel to a criminalized regime when not using the licenses.
Prostitution would be legal except for the female vote.. it's always the female vote that votes down and votes against the fun of males
You must be a lot of fun at parties
Remember the first thing women did when they got the right to vote in the US was to ban alcohol.
people here asking why this is a bad thing.
For one, it is pushing people from "low socioeconomical backgrounds" into a life where everyone else, besides those calling prostitution "sex work" (but also many of these hypocrites), is deeply despising them on a very basic level, which no orwellian newspeak will compensate for.
Then of course, most of these people will be heavily abused, and it will be ignored since, you know, "papers are ok"..
For one, it is pushing people from "low socioeconomical backgrounds" into a life where everyone else, besides those calling prostitution "sex work" (but also many of these hypocrites), is deeply despising them on a very basic level, which no orwellian newspeak will compensate for.
Then of course, most of these people will be heavily abused, and it will be ignored since, you know, "papers are ok"..
I feel like this is an upside down black market. In drugs you want to create marketplaces to control the flow of the substance. In sex you want to ban marketplaces, even if you allow purchases and selling because those basically are too close to human trafficking or pimps, though you could create body guard and check in services to ensure sex workers get to an appointment and get back home.
Will this increase or decrease human sex trafficking?
This is an important question, but the answer is tough. Trafficking takes on so many forms that aren't officially recognized or reported. Despite the progress made by governments and organizations in the last several years, quantifying trafficking is still flakey
Probably increase, because demand for the "silent" sellers will increase.
Was/is there ever a precedent of punishing both buyers and sellers? How did/does it fare?
Logically, complete legal commercialization of selling sex would immediately show up in premarital and marital contracts.
And if you involve a camera, then it's legal for everyone.
backtoyoujim(4)
>Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a bill into law this week that will eliminate penalties for those who sell sex while leaving in place laws against the purchase of it.