3 ms·

1) from what I've read (years ago), legalizing prostitution increases demand, and increases trafficking. (And increases legal occurrences too of course) It se

1) from what I've read (years ago), legalizing prostitution increases demand, and increases trafficking. (And increases legal occurrences too of course) It seems to me you were assuming / guessing. Lots of things are counter intuitive though

cutemonster 6y ago
Update: ok so this is about not prosecuting the prostitutes? That's a good thing to stop doing I think, and a dumb thing to ever have done I think. What can make sense is that it would be illegal to buy sex (but ok to sell). Otherwise, if attacking the prostitutes, the legal system hurts the ones it was supposed to help
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What can make sense is that it would be illegal to buy sex (but ok to sell). Otherwise, if attacking the prostitutes, the legal system hurts the ones it was supposed to help The prohibition of prostitution was never to protect prostitutes, who were viewed as the both immoral actors and temptors of others into immorality. Its true that a modern rationalization of maintaining the prohibition of prostitution is that it is a tool to protect people from being victimized by being compelled or misled into becoming prostitutes, but that’s more of an attempt to sell the policy to people who would reject the original premise by people who are personally invested in that premise but recognize that others are not than anything else.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > The prohibition of prostitution was never to protect prostitutes What was it about? It was about punishing the > immoral actors and temptors of others (from the lawmakers point of view, at the time) ? Where I am, it's different, in that the laws are meant to help those people (hence, legal to sell, but not to buy, around here)
Lazare 6y ago
From one of my other comments: > New Zealand legalised prostitution fully in 2003, and it seems to have had no negative effects. There was a major review 5 years after the law was passed (so 2008). Safety up, crime down, fewer sex workers on the streets, and at that time, no instances of human trafficking for the sex industry were able to be identified. As I noted, data on human trafficking is very poor, but...best data we have seems to be that no, legalisation does NOT increase it measurably. In addition studies suggest it hasn't increased the number of prostitutes either (see, eg, https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018607.pdf https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018607.pdf). It's easy to find claims of horrendous harms, but the NZ government, as part of it's official review in 2008, actively looked for and was unable to find any, and subsequent studies have consistently confirmed that. NZ has had legalised prostitution for almost 20 years now, and the effects seem to be entirely positive.

cutemonster 6y ago

Update: ok so this is about not prosecuting the prostitutes? That's a good thing to stop doing I think, and a dumb thing to ever have done I think. What can make sense is that it would be illegal to buy sex (but ok to sell). Otherwise, if attacking the prostitutes, the legal system hurts the ones it was supposed to help

dragonwriter 6y ago
> What can make sense is that it would be illegal to buy sex (but ok to sell). Otherwise, if attacking the prostitutes, the legal system hurts the ones it was supposed to help The prohibition of prostitution was never to protect prostitutes, who were viewed as the both immoral actors and temptors of others into immorality. Its true that a modern rationalization of maintaining the prohibition of prostitution is that it is a tool to protect people from being victimized by being compelled or misled into becoming prostitutes, but that’s more of an attempt to sell the policy to people who would reject the original premise by people who are personally invested in that premise but recognize that others are not than anything else.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > The prohibition of prostitution was never to protect prostitutes What was it about? It was about punishing the > immoral actors and temptors of others (from the lawmakers point of view, at the time) ? Where I am, it's different, in that the laws are meant to help those people (hence, legal to sell, but not to buy, around here)

Lazare 6y ago

From one of my other comments: > New Zealand legalised prostitution fully in 2003, and it seems to have had no negative effects. There was a major review 5 years after the law was passed (so 2008). Safety up, crime down, fewer sex workers on the streets, and at that time, no instances of human trafficking for the sex industry were able to be identified. As I noted, data on human trafficking is very poor, but...best data we have seems to be that no, legalisation does NOT increase it measurably. In addition studies suggest it hasn't increased the number of prostitutes either (see, eg, https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018607.pdf https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018607.pdf). It's easy to find claims of horrendous harms, but the NZ government, as part of it's official review in 2008, actively looked for and was unable to find any, and subsequent studies have consistently confirmed that. NZ has had legalised prostitution for almost 20 years now, and the effects seem to be entirely positive.