6 ms·

This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women f

This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women from other countries. There's lots and lots of studies out there that show that decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to lower trafficking or better outcomes for prostitutes. Also the rhetoric we use here (defeatist, people are going to solicit sex and break the law so let's make it easier for them, etc.) is in stark contrast to how we talk about problems we actually want to fight in our societies like obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers, etc. In those situations we never say that people are going to do such things anyways and criminalizing it just makes those who do those crimes more unlikely to change, more unlikely to get back into society, more distrustful of the system, etc. In those situations we spend tons and tons of money at the corporate and the government level trying to teach people these behaviors are wrong and to not engage in them. Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?

throwaway3699 5y ago
> obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers Not going to lie, but I feel most people don't care about these either. All I see are platitudes.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's politics. For example, the criminal justice system is all messed up. Over-criminalization, coercive plea bargains, law enforcement unaccountability etc. But we focus on police shootings of black men, which aren't actually disproportionate to the number of police encounters with black men. Because it's a thing you can put video of on the television and get people frothy about, but it's not a thing you can solve on its own because it's a consequence of all of those other things and not a cause in itself. By getting people to focus on the wrong thing, they can get votes without having to do the hard work of solving the underlying problems. Instead they give you empty symbolism -- take down statues, rename stuff -- which doesn't fix anything. More than that, because the underlying problems never get solved that way, they can keep campaigning on it forever.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Exactly. Just like the rise of domestic extremism is a consequence of young men being left behind by technological progress and algorithmic echo chambers. Seeing no way for themselves in the world they are easily radicalized on social media. The mentally ill carry out spectacular displays of violence once they are nurtured by these groups. "Cracking down on domestic extremism" is a convenient way to maintain favor with the upper classes who are fearful of the discontent and militant attitudes and supposed actions of these groups (people are claiming membership in movements that have no central authority). It does not address the problem though and actually "cracking down" will only further inflame it. The solution is finding a way to offer these discarded people a way forward, real opportunity where they can see themselves being somebody that matters in their community. Attaching themselves to an extreme ideology is a cheap, last ditch effort to be somebody.
dkdk8283 5y ago
You can’t kill the oldest profession in the world. It will never happen. You know what FOSTA/SESTA did? Push it deeper underground.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Specifically it made sex trafficking victims harder to rescue, by eliminating the means that LEO used to find them. Evidence indicates that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings. A competent press would examine the history of trafficking laws and report the actual outcomes - instead of parroting the PR that pols hand to them.
  - otterley 5y ago
    What evidence can you point to? Genuinely curious, not shitposting.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Here's a start. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-police-admitting-that-fosta-sesta-has-made-it-much-more-difficult-to-catch-pimps-traffickers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-...
      - otterley 5y ago
        I was specifically referring to your claim that “lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.” This article says nothing about that, and TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization. Sure, they’re great at pointing out hypocrisies and weaknesses for our amusement, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do any in-depth analysis or reporting.
        wonnage 5y ago
msla 5y ago
The only way legalized sex work can fail to reduce trafficking in sex workers is if there's insufficient background checks on sex workers. I'm familiar with the facts you're citing, and that's the only thing that makes sense. It makes precisely no sense to imagine it's a reason to keep sex work illegal.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
> Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes? We completely agree about the purpose of government. The government exists to provide education and support for people to escape toxic situations, NOT more LAWS backed by the threat of violence, with over reaching questionable authority to force people to do what a subset of people believe is morally right, based on sensationalized media reporting, whether that's prostitution, drug use, abortion, gun laws, mask usage...etc. Unless there's unquestionable hard science to make a law over, with data effecting the majority of the population, the federal government should not be involved in a legislative capacity. There's already an uncountable number of federal laws(you can google it). We need to err on the side of freedom not safety and morality.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  Prostitution makes all those involved highly likely to contract STDs and that's a public health issue. It's also unquestionable hard science that the more sexual encounters you have the higher your risk of contracting an STD and spreading it to others is no matter how safe you are. Are you willing to pay for law enforcement to make sure prostitutes and johns get STD tests before and between each encounter (and make sure they don't have any other sexual encounters after their tests)? I'd wager most people try to skirt such enforcement and it becomes expensive and leads to increases in STDs amongst the public.
bobthepanda 5y ago
There are prostitutes consenting to have paid sex. It’s not necessarily a job borne of desperation. I would imagine a vanishingly small percentage of people are consenting to be on the receiving end of racial discrimination or hate crimes.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  Two different things are never going to be exactly the same. That's why this is a comparison. You're right, about the difference of consent vis a vis racism and prostitution, but the link I established between them was not related to consent, that's just a different feature of the two things. Consent isn't the issue here. It's about human behavior and how we can convince humans to work towards better outcomes. In that sense, both prostitution and racism were popular and disadvantaged one group for the advantage of the other (no amount of consent diminishes the disadvantage levied upon women who become prostitutes). Prostitution damages society (and so to did racism). Prostitution damages society because it spreads STDs no matter how safe one wants to be about it. It's not possible to get STD tests between every client a prostitute wants to have. It's also cost prohibitive, especially in a country like the US where there isn't even universal healthcare. Those who solicit prostitutes enable the entire industry, so why, as a society can't we see that, just as racism is socially destructive in practice and is enabled by powerful actors acting on a less powerful group, so too is prostitution. Finally, the link between prostitution and racism is that both are bad for society, both are enabled by a powerful group whose bad actions harm a less powerful group, and both are not going to be made "safe" for anyone to practice as their effects are always going to be harmful for society. With that in mind, why treat differently the actions of the powerful groups which enable both destructive behaviors.
afturkrull 5y ago
You make some very interesting points. I don't know why it was modded into invisibility. Speaking for myself, the prostitutes, sorry that should be ‘sex workers’, don't benefit from the job. Who does are the pimps who control the industry. In the case of the Internet that woud be the cyber-pimps. It's a very self-destructive ‘lifestyle’. You'd be better off flipping hamburgers. I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients. ------- Quoting @notsureaboutpg: “This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women from other countries. There's lots and lots of studies out there that show that decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to lower trafficking or better outcomes for prostitutes. Also the rhetoric we use here (defeatist, people are going to solicit sex and break the law so let's make it easier for them, etc.) is in stark contrast to how we talk about problems we actually want to fight in our societies like obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers, etc. In those situations we never say that people are going to do such things anyways and criminalizing it just makes those who do those crimes more unlikely to change, more unlikely to get back into society, more distrustful of the system, etc. In those situations we spend tons and tons of money at the corporate and the government level trying to teach people these behaviors are wrong and to not engage in them. Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?”
- standardUser 5y ago
  "I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients." You seem very confident that this is an indisputable fact. Can you explain to us why paying for sex work and performing sex work are always degrading acts?
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    This^. And on the other side, let’s jail sex workers. It is surely not degrading/s
karaterobot 5y ago
Agreed that decriminalizing prostitution is not a fix to sex trafficking, or the other attendant problems of sex work. However, we know very well that making prostitution illegal has no effect on those either. All else equal, it's more expensive to fight something you can't stop or even really slow down very much, which is why I think less money should be spent on enforcement than, say, treatment of the inevitable consequences. (Or better yet, trying to address the underlying factors that drive demand, though we almost never try that) I think there are legitimately different classes of problems, and some are better addressed through regulation, and others are just made worse. Racism (read: systematic racism at an organizational or policy level) and worker mistreatment are likely in the former: problems that are possible to at least noticeably mitigate through legislative changes, incentives, and punishments. Alcohol and drug prohibition I would put into the latter class: things people will continuing doing no matter how illegal they are. Prostitution seems like it clearly belongs with drugs and alcohol, though I would love to hear the reasons you disagree. By the way, I have no idea why your comment got downvoted. I disagree with it so far, but it's a coherent argument and not particularly nasty. It's hard to have discussions on HN when dissenting opinions just get buried.

throwaway3699 5y ago

> obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers Not going to lie, but I feel most people don't care about these either. All I see are platitudes.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
It's politics. For example, the criminal justice system is all messed up. Over-criminalization, coercive plea bargains, law enforcement unaccountability etc. But we focus on police shootings of black men, which aren't actually disproportionate to the number of police encounters with black men. Because it's a thing you can put video of on the television and get people frothy about, but it's not a thing you can solve on its own because it's a consequence of all of those other things and not a cause in itself. By getting people to focus on the wrong thing, they can get votes without having to do the hard work of solving the underlying problems. Instead they give you empty symbolism -- take down statues, rename stuff -- which doesn't fix anything. More than that, because the underlying problems never get solved that way, they can keep campaigning on it forever.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Exactly. Just like the rise of domestic extremism is a consequence of young men being left behind by technological progress and algorithmic echo chambers. Seeing no way for themselves in the world they are easily radicalized on social media. The mentally ill carry out spectacular displays of violence once they are nurtured by these groups. "Cracking down on domestic extremism" is a convenient way to maintain favor with the upper classes who are fearful of the discontent and militant attitudes and supposed actions of these groups (people are claiming membership in movements that have no central authority). It does not address the problem though and actually "cracking down" will only further inflame it. The solution is finding a way to offer these discarded people a way forward, real opportunity where they can see themselves being somebody that matters in their community. Attaching themselves to an extreme ideology is a cheap, last ditch effort to be somebody.

dkdk8283 5y ago

You can’t kill the oldest profession in the world. It will never happen. You know what FOSTA/SESTA did? Push it deeper underground.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Specifically it made sex trafficking victims harder to rescue, by eliminating the means that LEO used to find them. Evidence indicates that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings. A competent press would examine the history of trafficking laws and report the actual outcomes - instead of parroting the PR that pols hand to them.
- otterley 5y ago
  What evidence can you point to? Genuinely curious, not shitposting.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Here's a start. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-police-admitting-that-fosta-sesta-has-made-it-much-more-difficult-to-catch-pimps-traffickers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-...
    - otterley 5y ago
      I was specifically referring to your claim that “lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.” This article says nothing about that, and TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization. Sure, they’re great at pointing out hypocrisies and weaknesses for our amusement, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do any in-depth analysis or reporting.
      - wonnage 5y ago

msla 5y ago

The only way legalized sex work can fail to reduce trafficking in sex workers is if there's insufficient background checks on sex workers. I'm familiar with the facts you're citing, and that's the only thing that makes sense. It makes precisely no sense to imagine it's a reason to keep sex work illegal.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

> Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes? We completely agree about the purpose of government. The government exists to provide education and support for people to escape toxic situations, NOT more LAWS backed by the threat of violence, with over reaching questionable authority to force people to do what a subset of people believe is morally right, based on sensationalized media reporting, whether that's prostitution, drug use, abortion, gun laws, mask usage...etc. Unless there's unquestionable hard science to make a law over, with data effecting the majority of the population, the federal government should not be involved in a legislative capacity. There's already an uncountable number of federal laws(you can google it). We need to err on the side of freedom not safety and morality.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
Prostitution makes all those involved highly likely to contract STDs and that's a public health issue. It's also unquestionable hard science that the more sexual encounters you have the higher your risk of contracting an STD and spreading it to others is no matter how safe you are. Are you willing to pay for law enforcement to make sure prostitutes and johns get STD tests before and between each encounter (and make sure they don't have any other sexual encounters after their tests)? I'd wager most people try to skirt such enforcement and it becomes expensive and leads to increases in STDs amongst the public.

bobthepanda 5y ago

There are prostitutes consenting to have paid sex. It’s not necessarily a job borne of desperation. I would imagine a vanishingly small percentage of people are consenting to be on the receiving end of racial discrimination or hate crimes.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
Two different things are never going to be exactly the same. That's why this is a comparison. You're right, about the difference of consent vis a vis racism and prostitution, but the link I established between them was not related to consent, that's just a different feature of the two things. Consent isn't the issue here. It's about human behavior and how we can convince humans to work towards better outcomes. In that sense, both prostitution and racism were popular and disadvantaged one group for the advantage of the other (no amount of consent diminishes the disadvantage levied upon women who become prostitutes). Prostitution damages society (and so to did racism). Prostitution damages society because it spreads STDs no matter how safe one wants to be about it. It's not possible to get STD tests between every client a prostitute wants to have. It's also cost prohibitive, especially in a country like the US where there isn't even universal healthcare. Those who solicit prostitutes enable the entire industry, so why, as a society can't we see that, just as racism is socially destructive in practice and is enabled by powerful actors acting on a less powerful group, so too is prostitution. Finally, the link between prostitution and racism is that both are bad for society, both are enabled by a powerful group whose bad actions harm a less powerful group, and both are not going to be made "safe" for anyone to practice as their effects are always going to be harmful for society. With that in mind, why treat differently the actions of the powerful groups which enable both destructive behaviors.

afturkrull 5y ago

You make some very interesting points. I don't know why it was modded into invisibility. Speaking for myself, the prostitutes, sorry that should be ‘sex workers’, don't benefit from the job. Who does are the pimps who control the industry. In the case of the Internet that woud be the cyber-pimps. It's a very self-destructive ‘lifestyle’. You'd be better off flipping hamburgers. I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients. ------- Quoting @notsureaboutpg: “This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women from other countries. There's lots and lots of studies out there that show that decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to lower trafficking or better outcomes for prostitutes. Also the rhetoric we use here (defeatist, people are going to solicit sex and break the law so let's make it easier for them, etc.) is in stark contrast to how we talk about problems we actually want to fight in our societies like obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers, etc. In those situations we never say that people are going to do such things anyways and criminalizing it just makes those who do those crimes more unlikely to change, more unlikely to get back into society, more distrustful of the system, etc. In those situations we spend tons and tons of money at the corporate and the government level trying to teach people these behaviors are wrong and to not engage in them. Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?”

standardUser 5y ago
"I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients." You seem very confident that this is an indisputable fact. Can you explain to us why paying for sex work and performing sex work are always degrading acts?
- elzbardico 5y ago
  This^. And on the other side, let’s jail sex workers. It is surely not degrading/s

karaterobot 5y ago

Agreed that decriminalizing prostitution is not a fix to sex trafficking, or the other attendant problems of sex work. However, we know very well that making prostitution illegal has no effect on those either. All else equal, it's more expensive to fight something you can't stop or even really slow down very much, which is why I think less money should be spent on enforcement than, say, treatment of the inevitable consequences. (Or better yet, trying to address the underlying factors that drive demand, though we almost never try that) I think there are legitimately different classes of problems, and some are better addressed through regulation, and others are just made worse. Racism (read: systematic racism at an organizational or policy level) and worker mistreatment are likely in the former: problems that are possible to at least noticeably mitigate through legislative changes, incentives, and punishments. Alcohol and drug prohibition I would put into the latter class: things people will continuing doing no matter how illegal they are. Prostitution seems like it clearly belongs with drugs and alcohol, though I would love to hear the reasons you disagree. By the way, I have no idea why your comment got downvoted. I disagree with it so far, but it's a coherent argument and not particularly nasty. It's hard to have discussions on HN when dissenting opinions just get buried.