4 ms·

I have never understood the concept of victimless crime. If two (or more) people are free to choose to have sex together and such parties are free to enter into

I have never understood the concept of victimless crime. If two (or more) people are free to choose to have sex together and such parties are free to enter into a commercial / labor agreement how can the combination of the two be a problem? It seems to me that it's a way to keep women from capitalizing on the area in which they have unique value over men. Obviously I'm not talking about forced sex - or forced anything. Kidnapping, slavery, and rape are illegal and certainly apply in forced prostitution. But in cases when it's a choice freely made by all parties concerned legal status can only help make it safer for all.

ex3ndr 8y ago
Selling weapons to ISIS is not a crime then?
- gumby 8y ago
  That’s a great example, but consider the framing of the last sentence of the gp’s post: > But in cases when it's a choice freely made by all parties concerned ... Presumably the targets of isis’s weapons are “parties” and don’t want to be shot at. Then again, what about hiring police: the robber is a “party” too and presumably does not consent to being caught!
  - Aegaeus10111 8y ago
    "...the robber is a “party”..." yes, but by definition a party that has already broken the law and mutual consent - the interaction with police would be a direct result, or an extension of that non-consensual act. :-) I can imagine lots of extreme edge cases and semantic word play on this - and I guess phrasing things to take in every conceivable situation is why lawyers make so much. I'll stick with "the spirit of the notion".
- Aegaeus10111 8y ago
  Good point. If I was a purist I'd say "no". Using those weapons might be. Not being a purist I'm happy to make exceptions for probable use or effect of the activity. So: Selling weapons to people likely to commit crimes is a reasonable exception to the simple version above. and Prostitution, where the probable outcome is a mutually satisfying service involving ONLY the parties involved is not a reasonable exception.
candiodari 8y ago
Reading some psychological literature a picture quickly emerges that answers your question: firstly because there are all sorts of social norms around this, that encourage power plays. The norms are mostly around not doing this, that make both parties to the agreement vulnerable to all sorts of issues before, during and afterwards. For instance, videotaping the action and then blackmailing people with it. Or otherwise causing trouble outside of the direct transaction. And of course, the other side of it, "services" to prevent that from happening outside of the legal system. Also I feel like I'm pointing out something that's both disgusting and obvious, but I feel like it needs pointing out. More than a bit of sex is painful. For both sexes, but especially for women. There are reasons for that, which boil down to there being a limit to how much friction skin can take, no matter the amount of lubrication (which obviously doesn't tend to be 100% in order, because while you are "the best ever", so is everyone else). This means that sex work other than perhaps really high class escorts is not voluntary, and even then ... It also means that sex workers quickly gravitate to other options than direct intercourse, of which there are thankfully many. But making matters worse, this is not the sort of activity that is executed in the calmest and politest of settings, and by it's nature does not promote reasoned discussion. Or to put it more to the point: you're going to get hit hard, accidentally, and you're going to get beaten up, non-accidentally, and you're going to have to beat up people. It's just going to happen. Also, the whole point is to let self-control go for at least a while, which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop, say, twisting an arm until a certain event that may take a minute or two to occur. Thirdly, like anything that involves a lot of endorphins, you can get addicted to it. It can get bad: you can literally get addicted to the pain of overdoing it (as in people who cut themselves open during sex, sometimes without telling the "other side of the transaction" they're going to do this). Even in much milder cases, it's still going to cause abuse and violence.
- Aegaeus10111 8y ago
  I am not aware of psychology having any role in legislative work beyond an advisory role. One reason for this, I think, is that for any psych idea or theory one can find at least one diametrically opposed one. There is no empirical test to be carried out to falsify one or another. Your first point is interesting, in the US where paying for asexual services is illegal in most places, it magically becomes legal if I videotape it (with approval of all concerned) and pay the people not for sexual services but for acting roles that include full sex. In your example it's the blackmailing that's the problem, and that, like my examples of rape and slavery, is illegal with or without sex being involved. And BTW, one can blackmail without professional sex services - the sex can be for free (hence fully legal) or it can involve any other thing the victim (see? no longer a victimless crimes) wants to keep private. Many jobs have physical limitations and / or discomfort if done wrong. Sitting in front of a computer all day has a great many long term physical dangers. The solution there is workplace safety, ergonomics, and sensible limits. None of those are likely when prostitution is illegal - but are fully compatible with legal sex work. Actually, I have known some prostitutes. Their workplaces were quite calm and polite. But, in circa 1900, factories, mills and even office typing pools and other workplaces were dangerous, noisy and in no way calm or polite. Workplace regulations have done amazing stuff to make them much more so. In the beginning - shop bosses often beat up people - Henry Ford had private guards shoot striking workers. None of that means we should NOT have pushed for workplace improvements. I see no reason prostitutes should be excluded from that. Are you really suggesting that they should be kept in hard and dangerous settings? What you describe sounds like criminal controlled prostitution which very often involves... slavery or other coercion. As mentioned in my post - that is bad, should be opposed and prosecuted but will only improve with legal status and allowing prostitutes to call the cops. I'm not sure what you mean by "... let self-control go for at least a while...which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop..." Private businesses often have security staff to keep people from "losing self control". Bars and nightclubs leap to mind. But again - that may be possible illegal activity done by someone - but it's not specific to paying for sex. Sure - you can get addicted to many things, like jogging, wine, or chocolate... or sex. How does paying for sex change this? Or... should exercise, wine and chocolate only be allowed for free too? :-) All these points are great for various discussion but I don't see how they relate to keeping the payment for sex illegal.
goto11 8y ago
Do you genuinely not understand, or do you just disagree with such laws? People in favor of such laws generally does not consider such actions victimless. For example a historically rational reason to regulate or outlaw prostitution was to curb the spread of venereal diseases.
- Aegaeus10111 8y ago
  I disagree that when all parties involved are willing that others can classify one of those parties as a victim. If we did that we could include selling unhealthy food, for instance. If others don't agree with such transactions they needn't participate.

ex3ndr 8y ago

Selling weapons to ISIS is not a crime then?

gumby 8y ago
That’s a great example, but consider the framing of the last sentence of the gp’s post: > But in cases when it's a choice freely made by all parties concerned ... Presumably the targets of isis’s weapons are “parties” and don’t want to be shot at. Then again, what about hiring police: the robber is a “party” too and presumably does not consent to being caught!
- Aegaeus10111 8y ago
  "...the robber is a “party”..." yes, but by definition a party that has already broken the law and mutual consent - the interaction with police would be a direct result, or an extension of that non-consensual act. :-) I can imagine lots of extreme edge cases and semantic word play on this - and I guess phrasing things to take in every conceivable situation is why lawyers make so much. I'll stick with "the spirit of the notion".
Aegaeus10111 8y ago
Good point. If I was a purist I'd say "no". Using those weapons might be. Not being a purist I'm happy to make exceptions for probable use or effect of the activity. So: Selling weapons to people likely to commit crimes is a reasonable exception to the simple version above. and Prostitution, where the probable outcome is a mutually satisfying service involving ONLY the parties involved is not a reasonable exception.

candiodari 8y ago

Reading some psychological literature a picture quickly emerges that answers your question: firstly because there are all sorts of social norms around this, that encourage power plays. The norms are mostly around not doing this, that make both parties to the agreement vulnerable to all sorts of issues before, during and afterwards. For instance, videotaping the action and then blackmailing people with it. Or otherwise causing trouble outside of the direct transaction. And of course, the other side of it, "services" to prevent that from happening outside of the legal system. Also I feel like I'm pointing out something that's both disgusting and obvious, but I feel like it needs pointing out. More than a bit of sex is painful. For both sexes, but especially for women. There are reasons for that, which boil down to there being a limit to how much friction skin can take, no matter the amount of lubrication (which obviously doesn't tend to be 100% in order, because while you are "the best ever", so is everyone else). This means that sex work other than perhaps really high class escorts is not voluntary, and even then ... It also means that sex workers quickly gravitate to other options than direct intercourse, of which there are thankfully many. But making matters worse, this is not the sort of activity that is executed in the calmest and politest of settings, and by it's nature does not promote reasoned discussion. Or to put it more to the point: you're going to get hit hard, accidentally, and you're going to get beaten up, non-accidentally, and you're going to have to beat up people. It's just going to happen. Also, the whole point is to let self-control go for at least a while, which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop, say, twisting an arm until a certain event that may take a minute or two to occur. Thirdly, like anything that involves a lot of endorphins, you can get addicted to it. It can get bad: you can literally get addicted to the pain of overdoing it (as in people who cut themselves open during sex, sometimes without telling the "other side of the transaction" they're going to do this). Even in much milder cases, it's still going to cause abuse and violence.

Aegaeus10111 8y ago
I am not aware of psychology having any role in legislative work beyond an advisory role. One reason for this, I think, is that for any psych idea or theory one can find at least one diametrically opposed one. There is no empirical test to be carried out to falsify one or another. Your first point is interesting, in the US where paying for asexual services is illegal in most places, it magically becomes legal if I videotape it (with approval of all concerned) and pay the people not for sexual services but for acting roles that include full sex. In your example it's the blackmailing that's the problem, and that, like my examples of rape and slavery, is illegal with or without sex being involved. And BTW, one can blackmail without professional sex services - the sex can be for free (hence fully legal) or it can involve any other thing the victim (see? no longer a victimless crimes) wants to keep private. Many jobs have physical limitations and / or discomfort if done wrong. Sitting in front of a computer all day has a great many long term physical dangers. The solution there is workplace safety, ergonomics, and sensible limits. None of those are likely when prostitution is illegal - but are fully compatible with legal sex work. Actually, I have known some prostitutes. Their workplaces were quite calm and polite. But, in circa 1900, factories, mills and even office typing pools and other workplaces were dangerous, noisy and in no way calm or polite. Workplace regulations have done amazing stuff to make them much more so. In the beginning - shop bosses often beat up people - Henry Ford had private guards shoot striking workers. None of that means we should NOT have pushed for workplace improvements. I see no reason prostitutes should be excluded from that. Are you really suggesting that they should be kept in hard and dangerous settings? What you describe sounds like criminal controlled prostitution which very often involves... slavery or other coercion. As mentioned in my post - that is bad, should be opposed and prosecuted but will only improve with legal status and allowing prostitutes to call the cops. I'm not sure what you mean by "... let self-control go for at least a while...which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop..." Private businesses often have security staff to keep people from "losing self control". Bars and nightclubs leap to mind. But again - that may be possible illegal activity done by someone - but it's not specific to paying for sex. Sure - you can get addicted to many things, like jogging, wine, or chocolate... or sex. How does paying for sex change this? Or... should exercise, wine and chocolate only be allowed for free too? :-) All these points are great for various discussion but I don't see how they relate to keeping the payment for sex illegal.

goto11 8y ago

Do you genuinely not understand, or do you just disagree with such laws? People in favor of such laws generally does not consider such actions victimless. For example a historically rational reason to regulate or outlaw prostitution was to curb the spread of venereal diseases.

Aegaeus10111 8y ago
I disagree that when all parties involved are willing that others can classify one of those parties as a victim. If we did that we could include selling unhealthy food, for instance. If others don't agree with such transactions they needn't participate.