4 ms·

It is not the only option. Removing it changes the value balance. If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. Not only th

It is not the only option. Removing it changes the value balance. If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. Not only that, assuming more people who would normally get by on selling their sexual services turn to public assistance for help, their problem becomes more visible and the rest of us in better positions can react rather than ignore what is not being measured.

aninhumer 10y ago
>If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. So by your own logic, prostitution is more desirable to those who choose it than the alternatives? So you want to make it artificially less desirable so they choose a different (worse) option?
- clavalle 10y ago
  Yes. In the short term it would be a 'worse' option but in the long term it would lead to a better outcome for them and others. Much like we make it artificially less desirable to do things like build a house that is not up to code.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    > in the long term it would lead to a better outcome I'm not really sure I follow the argument for it leading to a better outcome. Prostitution has been illegal for a long time, long before the existence of Backpage, and we haven't seen an outpouring of support for improved public assistance. Indeed, people on public assistance are usually characterised as lazy scroungers who can't be bothered to get a real job. Meanwhile prostitutes are usually considered tragic victims of adverse circumstances. So if anything, it would seem like a massive increase in the numbers of prostitutes as a result of legalisation (not to mention the increased visibility of the existing amount) would be far more likely to lead to support for change than the status quo.
mattzito 10y ago
It's more complicated than that - even for those being trafficked, in-calls and indoor prostitution are safer than street/outdoor prostitution: http://scunning.com/resubmission_july2016.pdf http://scunning.com/resubmission_july2016.pdf Services like backpage allow sex workers to vet clients ahead of time, control the time and place of an assignation, have that indoors, and then leave. Certainly some of those sex workers are trafficked, but not all are, and driving either population out onto the street for sex work puts them in greater danger of violence, sexual assault, and/or STIs.
- clavalle 10y ago
  My assumption is that the extra risk would be taken into account and many, if not most, would decide that it is no longer worth it and choose to do something that is less lucrative in the short term but lead to better outcomes in the long term.
saint_fiasco 10y ago
>Removing it changes the value balance. If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. The value balance should be changed by making other options easier and more desirable, not by making the lives of prostitutes harder. Otherwise it sounds like you actually just don't like prostitution, regardless of what freedoms prostitutes have.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Ideally, I agree. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and we have to settle for the quicker stopgap, the point of which isn't to punish prostitutes but change the value calculation of people before they go that route. This conversation makes me realize that I don't have much data, though. How many prostitutes are doing it out of some level of desperation? I assume most since it is so risky in so many different ways (the risk of legal punishment being near the least of it). But, I'll admit, I don't know.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    If the risk of legal punishment is near the least of it, then how is that going to change the value calculation? If it is only a trivial inconvenience, it is useless. If it is a grave inconvenience, it is evil.

aninhumer 10y ago

>If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. So by your own logic, prostitution is more desirable to those who choose it than the alternatives? So you want to make it artificially less desirable so they choose a different (worse) option?

clavalle 10y ago
Yes. In the short term it would be a 'worse' option but in the long term it would lead to a better outcome for them and others. Much like we make it artificially less desirable to do things like build a house that is not up to code.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  > in the long term it would lead to a better outcome I'm not really sure I follow the argument for it leading to a better outcome. Prostitution has been illegal for a long time, long before the existence of Backpage, and we haven't seen an outpouring of support for improved public assistance. Indeed, people on public assistance are usually characterised as lazy scroungers who can't be bothered to get a real job. Meanwhile prostitutes are usually considered tragic victims of adverse circumstances. So if anything, it would seem like a massive increase in the numbers of prostitutes as a result of legalisation (not to mention the increased visibility of the existing amount) would be far more likely to lead to support for change than the status quo.

mattzito 10y ago

It's more complicated than that - even for those being trafficked, in-calls and indoor prostitution are safer than street/outdoor prostitution: http://scunning.com/resubmission_july2016.pdf http://scunning.com/resubmission_july2016.pdf Services like backpage allow sex workers to vet clients ahead of time, control the time and place of an assignation, have that indoors, and then leave. Certainly some of those sex workers are trafficked, but not all are, and driving either population out onto the street for sex work puts them in greater danger of violence, sexual assault, and/or STIs.

clavalle 10y ago
My assumption is that the extra risk would be taken into account and many, if not most, would decide that it is no longer worth it and choose to do something that is less lucrative in the short term but lead to better outcomes in the long term.

saint_fiasco 10y ago

>Removing it changes the value balance. If it is not quite so easy, the other options become relatively more desirable. The value balance should be changed by making other options easier and more desirable, not by making the lives of prostitutes harder. Otherwise it sounds like you actually just don't like prostitution, regardless of what freedoms prostitutes have.

clavalle 10y ago
Ideally, I agree. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and we have to settle for the quicker stopgap, the point of which isn't to punish prostitutes but change the value calculation of people before they go that route. This conversation makes me realize that I don't have much data, though. How many prostitutes are doing it out of some level of desperation? I assume most since it is so risky in so many different ways (the risk of legal punishment being near the least of it). But, I'll admit, I don't know.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  If the risk of legal punishment is near the least of it, then how is that going to change the value calculation? If it is only a trivial inconvenience, it is useless. If it is a grave inconvenience, it is evil.