6 ms·

I hate to use the <current year> argument but it's really sad that in 2018 we're still trying to make voluntary sex work illegal when every studies show that it

I hate to use the <current year> argument but it's really sad that in 2018 we're still trying to make voluntary sex work illegal when every studies show that it 1) doesn't work and 2) makes everything worse for everyone involved. Also, the fact that the very president is known to have used prostitutes and that Washington politicians are well known to be big customers makes this hypocrisy really infuriating.

dilap 9y ago
it's also just an absurd restriction from a perspective that values individual liberty. "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  ...all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? only if it is a private transaction. Making pornography is legal. You are correct, there lies no sense here.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    So if you want to legally pay someone for sex, you and the person you're paying have to agree to be on tape, you need to check their ID and make a photo of it[1], you probably need to get them to fill out all the standard compliance forms and you probably only want to do this in California, Florida or one of those other locations that big porn studios flock to because the laws are favorable to their industry and less ambiguous. ..or I guess you could move to Nevada. [1] If they use a fake ID and are underage, you can still be liable.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    Making pornography is only legal if you comply with certain regulations. For example you need to validate that all the "actors" were adults (sane enough). But then you also need to maintain a place that is accessible to law enforcement during business hours so they can drop in and check your records to validate all the "actors" were over the legal age (sane enough, especially if the thinking is only businesses generate porn). But then the way the laws are written, a couple recording a sex tape is covered under these regulations. If they don't maintain the proper records, they could find themselves being indicated under child porn laws, even though they were both consenting adults.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Governmental attempts to suppress "immoral" but natural human behavior has been tried for thousands of years and has never worked. I.e. attempts to stop: * drinking * gambling * prostitution * drugs * adultery * homosexuality * lending money * black markets
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Lending money?
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      Usury is not without controversy.
    - elil17 9y ago
      In ye old days people thought charging interest was a sin right in there with adulatory
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        And yet people lent money anyway, they just used complex accounting maneuvers to obfuscate it.
        aphextron 9y ago
        And they still do. Look up "Islamic Mortgages". The level of hoops people will jump through to keep some semblance of logical consistency in their nonsense is just absurd.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      I suggest the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Almost all early religious entities, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, condemned the concept of using money to make money as immoral. The belief was that money was meant to exchange debt, not make people wealthy off that debt. Today Islam still holds this as a majority view in many places (not universally). I'm simplifying it a lot, so I really recommend the book. There is a strong correlation between debt and guilt. In Christian doctrine, they're very interchangeable (forgive us our debts/sins as we forgive those who are indebted to/have sinned against us). Guilt, Sin and debt are the same word in many ancient languages, including old English. Guilt and debt are still the same word in German.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Yep, that's the absolute BS about it. That somehow government should intervene in your personal life choices that affect no one other than consenting adults. However, I would hope no one has to resort to unwanted sex work to afford life and liberty--just for a simple roof over their head, for food and basic healthcare. That's what I fear with legalizing prostitution... I just personally think the idea of knowing people have to do that out of economic necessity is horrible.
  - cornholio 9y ago
    On the other hand, people faced with economic hardships that are choosing prostitution do so at the expense of some other choice that, to them, is even more horrible - otherwise they wouldn't do it. It's hard to argue that prostitution is always a damaging choice that should always be forbidden like selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc. This is why I think the economic constraints argument is specious here, it is still a form of imposing one's moral values onto others; unless you are willing to provide a living wage out of your own money to anybody opting to renounce prostitution, denying them that option means subjecting them to something even more horrible in their view, only because you think it's not.
    - nfoz 9y ago
      I think the law will always encapsulate some idea of morality. You've already suggested some places where US law restricts contracts that might seem to be between consenting adults. It's a moral choice for the law to restrict you from "selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc." I think there's good reason for the law to be protective, because merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. Whether prostitution falls into this category is a question of culture/morality.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        >merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. I think this ie consistent with my original point: society should not allow exploitation of people who are simply trying to survive.
- kartan 9y ago
  > "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense. This is true, only if individuals have a good education, job opportunities, a broad enough safety net, etc. Otherwise, you are just pushing abused women or women with no resources to submit to sexual servitude. When you have a high correlation between prostitution and poverty, you are just realizing that that choice was never there. A good approach is to punish clients instead of prostitutes. This way you help to shift power balance and protect prostitutes that denounce abuse. There is no freedom without a possibility of choice.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    By that reasoning all dangerous jobs should be off limits to poor people. Young people shouldn't be able to register for military service (especially during wars when "bonuses" are high). Poor people shouldn't be allowed to work as garbage collectors (garbage collectors have a higher fatality rate than law enforcement). The list could go on...
    - z0r 9y ago
      There are degrees of exploitation and levels of compulsion throughout all society. This doesn't mean that people have to be either okay with all exploitation and compulsion or none at all.
      - mortenlarsen 9y ago
        I would like to thank both you, and the parent for adding valuable points of views in a complicated debate in a concise and civil manner. I had had an "I agree" and "On the other hand" moment. For me this illustrated the complexity of the topic. There is no easy answer, and all who say it is simple, are probably wrong.
      - jdavis703 9y ago
        That's a fair point. There are even legal (and what should be relatively safe) career choices that can be subject to compulsion. For example meat packers have been documented to pressure workers with questionable immigration statuses in to low pay, high risk jobs [0]. When a meat packer does it we punish the meat packer, not the industry. When a trafficker does it, the entire industry gets painted with the same brush. [0] Fast Food Nation (I think it's written about in Chapter 8 "The Most Dangerous Job").
- chacham15 9y ago
  Honest question: if people wanted to participate in fights to the death where the winner gets an absurd amount of money, should that be legal? If not, then whats that defining difference? If so, what long term effect do you think this will have? Again, I'm asking because I dont know. To me, I think the above example would cause a lot of public harm in that people would be pressured into giving up their lives to potentially save their families from poverty. But at the same time, that reasoning could be applied to prostitution. But then again, with prostitution, you can always stop.
  - meowface 9y ago
    >If not, then whats that defining difference? In a typical/expected sex worker transaction, the worker performs a sexual act and then goes about their day without any lasting issues (other than perhaps minor symptoms like soreness). In a typical/expected gladiator duel, the person doesn't go about their day because they die. I'm not sure how you can compare those at all. When done safely and with precautions, sex work isn't very dangerous. See: Australian sex workers, after it was legalized there.
  - mortenlarsen 9y ago
    >Honest question: if people wanted to participate in fights to the death where the winner gets an absurd amount of money, should that be legal? You could say that about employment in some SV companies...
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    There is no objective truth to be had here. I want to live in a world where people have the freedom to decide for themselves. So I would let it be legal. There is a precedent for this type of law - Mutual combat is legal in Washington - https://fightstate.com/mutual-combat-law-in-washington-lets-two-people-have-a-consensual-streetfight-if-cops-referee/ https://fightstate.com/mutual-combat-law-in-washington-lets-...
  - adjkant 9y ago
    I think you hit on an important point: public harm Your scenario doesn't exist because these fights aren't a good deal/risk for most people. Prostitution is a lot more popular because it's not a risk, it's a sacrifice. The point being, the societal harm of outlawing your suggestion is little, but the societal harm of outlawing prostitution is much more than prostitution itself causes. At least I think that's a reasonable conclusion, as many others advocating for prostitution legality do. In addition to ownership of one's own body, etc. > To me, I think the above example would cause a lot of public harm in that people would be pressured into giving up their lives to potentially save their families from poverty. But at the same time, that reasoning could be applied to prostitution. Another problem is that this is quiiiiite a stretch. Prostitution is not giving up your life, it's a profession. In some cases people even enjoy the profession, though this is not to imply that most or even many do. Should we say all unhappy accountants are sacrificing their lives as well? Prostitutes can still have normal fulfilling lives. You can't if you're dead in your example. Aren't we all pressured into working in order to survive?
DanBC 9y ago
Backpage was taken down because they knowingly facilitated ads for unwilling sex work, sometimes involving children. You wouldn't have SESTA / FOSTA if you didn't have the pathologically terrible Backpage.
- epicureanideal 9y ago
  Citation? Is this proven to be true or speculation?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    A good place to start is this document: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report... You don't have to believe anything in this document. You can follow the links this documents gives to the court cases, and the court cases contain what Backpage themselves were saying.
    - epicureanideal 9y ago
      Very informative, thank you! Yeah, it sounds like some very unethical behavior on the part of the company.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  The founders who were arrested are not being charged for trafficking at all. I've heard they started auto-filtering words (teen, loli, etc.) but that could be interpreted with different intents. These aren't strict liability crimes, so intent will come in to play and need to be proven.
- mseebach 9y ago
  You also wouldn't have the PATRIOT act and the TSA (and a host of other junk) if some terrorists hadn't flown planes into the WTC. Bad actors doesn't excuse bad law, and good intentions does not make unintended consequences any less real.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
It's an issue people vote around. If people believe strongly that it's time for a change then support candidates who support that change.
dlwdlw 9y ago
US too concerned with feeling good rather than doing good.

dilap 9y ago

it's also just an absurd restriction from a perspective that values individual liberty. "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
...all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? only if it is a private transaction. Making pornography is legal. You are correct, there lies no sense here.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  So if you want to legally pay someone for sex, you and the person you're paying have to agree to be on tape, you need to check their ID and make a photo of it[1], you probably need to get them to fill out all the standard compliance forms and you probably only want to do this in California, Florida or one of those other locations that big porn studios flock to because the laws are favorable to their industry and less ambiguous. ..or I guess you could move to Nevada. [1] If they use a fake ID and are underage, you can still be liable.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Making pornography is only legal if you comply with certain regulations. For example you need to validate that all the "actors" were adults (sane enough). But then you also need to maintain a place that is accessible to law enforcement during business hours so they can drop in and check your records to validate all the "actors" were over the legal age (sane enough, especially if the thinking is only businesses generate porn). But then the way the laws are written, a couple recording a sex tape is covered under these regulations. If they don't maintain the proper records, they could find themselves being indicated under child porn laws, even though they were both consenting adults.
skookumchuck 9y ago
Governmental attempts to suppress "immoral" but natural human behavior has been tried for thousands of years and has never worked. I.e. attempts to stop: * drinking * gambling * prostitution * drugs * adultery * homosexuality * lending money * black markets
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Lending money?
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    Usury is not without controversy.
  - elil17 9y ago
    In ye old days people thought charging interest was a sin right in there with adulatory
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      And yet people lent money anyway, they just used complex accounting maneuvers to obfuscate it.
      - aphextron 9y ago
        And they still do. Look up "Islamic Mortgages". The level of hoops people will jump through to keep some semblance of logical consistency in their nonsense is just absurd.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    I suggest the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Almost all early religious entities, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, condemned the concept of using money to make money as immoral. The belief was that money was meant to exchange debt, not make people wealthy off that debt. Today Islam still holds this as a majority view in many places (not universally). I'm simplifying it a lot, so I really recommend the book. There is a strong correlation between debt and guilt. In Christian doctrine, they're very interchangeable (forgive us our debts/sins as we forgive those who are indebted to/have sinned against us). Guilt, Sin and debt are the same word in many ancient languages, including old English. Guilt and debt are still the same word in German.
wallace_f 9y ago
Yep, that's the absolute BS about it. That somehow government should intervene in your personal life choices that affect no one other than consenting adults. However, I would hope no one has to resort to unwanted sex work to afford life and liberty--just for a simple roof over their head, for food and basic healthcare. That's what I fear with legalizing prostitution... I just personally think the idea of knowing people have to do that out of economic necessity is horrible.
- cornholio 9y ago
  On the other hand, people faced with economic hardships that are choosing prostitution do so at the expense of some other choice that, to them, is even more horrible - otherwise they wouldn't do it. It's hard to argue that prostitution is always a damaging choice that should always be forbidden like selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc. This is why I think the economic constraints argument is specious here, it is still a form of imposing one's moral values onto others; unless you are willing to provide a living wage out of your own money to anybody opting to renounce prostitution, denying them that option means subjecting them to something even more horrible in their view, only because you think it's not.
  - nfoz 9y ago
    I think the law will always encapsulate some idea of morality. You've already suggested some places where US law restricts contracts that might seem to be between consenting adults. It's a moral choice for the law to restrict you from "selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc." I think there's good reason for the law to be protective, because merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. Whether prostitution falls into this category is a question of culture/morality.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      >merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. I think this ie consistent with my original point: society should not allow exploitation of people who are simply trying to survive.
kartan 9y ago
> "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense. This is true, only if individuals have a good education, job opportunities, a broad enough safety net, etc. Otherwise, you are just pushing abused women or women with no resources to submit to sexual servitude. When you have a high correlation between prostitution and poverty, you are just realizing that that choice was never there. A good approach is to punish clients instead of prostitutes. This way you help to shift power balance and protect prostitutes that denounce abuse. There is no freedom without a possibility of choice.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  By that reasoning all dangerous jobs should be off limits to poor people. Young people shouldn't be able to register for military service (especially during wars when "bonuses" are high). Poor people shouldn't be allowed to work as garbage collectors (garbage collectors have a higher fatality rate than law enforcement). The list could go on...
  - z0r 9y ago
    There are degrees of exploitation and levels of compulsion throughout all society. This doesn't mean that people have to be either okay with all exploitation and compulsion or none at all.
    - mortenlarsen 9y ago
      I would like to thank both you, and the parent for adding valuable points of views in a complicated debate in a concise and civil manner. I had had an "I agree" and "On the other hand" moment. For me this illustrated the complexity of the topic. There is no easy answer, and all who say it is simple, are probably wrong.
    - jdavis703 9y ago
      That's a fair point. There are even legal (and what should be relatively safe) career choices that can be subject to compulsion. For example meat packers have been documented to pressure workers with questionable immigration statuses in to low pay, high risk jobs [0]. When a meat packer does it we punish the meat packer, not the industry. When a trafficker does it, the entire industry gets painted with the same brush. [0] Fast Food Nation (I think it's written about in Chapter 8 "The Most Dangerous Job").
chacham15 9y ago
Honest question: if people wanted to participate in fights to the death where the winner gets an absurd amount of money, should that be legal? If not, then whats that defining difference? If so, what long term effect do you think this will have? Again, I'm asking because I dont know. To me, I think the above example would cause a lot of public harm in that people would be pressured into giving up their lives to potentially save their families from poverty. But at the same time, that reasoning could be applied to prostitution. But then again, with prostitution, you can always stop.
- meowface 9y ago
  >If not, then whats that defining difference? In a typical/expected sex worker transaction, the worker performs a sexual act and then goes about their day without any lasting issues (other than perhaps minor symptoms like soreness). In a typical/expected gladiator duel, the person doesn't go about their day because they die. I'm not sure how you can compare those at all. When done safely and with precautions, sex work isn't very dangerous. See: Australian sex workers, after it was legalized there.
- mortenlarsen 9y ago
  >Honest question: if people wanted to participate in fights to the death where the winner gets an absurd amount of money, should that be legal? You could say that about employment in some SV companies...
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  There is no objective truth to be had here. I want to live in a world where people have the freedom to decide for themselves. So I would let it be legal. There is a precedent for this type of law - Mutual combat is legal in Washington - https://fightstate.com/mutual-combat-law-in-washington-lets-two-people-have-a-consensual-streetfight-if-cops-referee/ https://fightstate.com/mutual-combat-law-in-washington-lets-...
- adjkant 9y ago
  I think you hit on an important point: public harm Your scenario doesn't exist because these fights aren't a good deal/risk for most people. Prostitution is a lot more popular because it's not a risk, it's a sacrifice. The point being, the societal harm of outlawing your suggestion is little, but the societal harm of outlawing prostitution is much more than prostitution itself causes. At least I think that's a reasonable conclusion, as many others advocating for prostitution legality do. In addition to ownership of one's own body, etc. > To me, I think the above example would cause a lot of public harm in that people would be pressured into giving up their lives to potentially save their families from poverty. But at the same time, that reasoning could be applied to prostitution. Another problem is that this is quiiiiite a stretch. Prostitution is not giving up your life, it's a profession. In some cases people even enjoy the profession, though this is not to imply that most or even many do. Should we say all unhappy accountants are sacrificing their lives as well? Prostitutes can still have normal fulfilling lives. You can't if you're dead in your example. Aren't we all pressured into working in order to survive?

DanBC 9y ago

Backpage was taken down because they knowingly facilitated ads for unwilling sex work, sometimes involving children. You wouldn't have SESTA / FOSTA if you didn't have the pathologically terrible Backpage.

epicureanideal 9y ago
Citation? Is this proven to be true or speculation?
- DanBC 9y ago
  A good place to start is this document: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report... You don't have to believe anything in this document. You can follow the links this documents gives to the court cases, and the court cases contain what Backpage themselves were saying.
  - epicureanideal 9y ago
    Very informative, thank you! Yeah, it sounds like some very unethical behavior on the part of the company.
djsumdog 9y ago
The founders who were arrested are not being charged for trafficking at all. I've heard they started auto-filtering words (teen, loli, etc.) but that could be interpreted with different intents. These aren't strict liability crimes, so intent will come in to play and need to be proven.
mseebach 9y ago
You also wouldn't have the PATRIOT act and the TSA (and a host of other junk) if some terrorists hadn't flown planes into the WTC. Bad actors doesn't excuse bad law, and good intentions does not make unintended consequences any less real.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

It's an issue people vote around. If people believe strongly that it's time for a change then support candidates who support that change.

dlwdlw 9y ago

US too concerned with feeling good rather than doing good.