3 ms·
You seem to be approaching this as if every human that has been trafficked is doing so willingly. Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law
by bmj 10y ago
You seem to be approaching this as if every human that has been trafficked is doing so willingly. Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills?
Or, put another way, do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal?
- dave_sullivan 10y ago> Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? More like individuals should be empowered by the law to charge money in exchange for sex. That's the thesis, the whole thing. "Party X paid Party Y for sex" becomes not a crime. > do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills? It doesn't matter, it's unrelated to the central thesis. It's possible to agree people should be free to charge for or pay for sex, while also condemning human trafficking and other forceful restrictions of personal agency more generally.
- aninhumer 10y agoYou don't seem to understand the parents argument at all. None of your rhetorical questions characterise their argument. They did not say all prostitution is consensual (and certainly not all trafficking, since that's pretty much defined not to be consensual). And they said absolutely nothing about child prostitution.