4 ms·

> it almost forces sex workers onto the street or into brothels (which often take a huge chunk of each transaction) Exactly. It makes sex work more dangerous,

> it almost forces sex workers onto the street or into brothels (which often take a huge chunk of each transaction) Exactly. It makes sex work more dangerous, not less.

formerly_proven 4y ago
Cake-eating-and-having exercise. To progressives: "See how progressive we are, not criminalizing sex work!" To conservatives: "See how conservative we are, endangering sex workers and making life hard for them!"
- feet 4y ago
  It's almost like conservatives only want to harm people who aren't like them. Weird
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse. There is no safe way to do sex work that doesn't result in problems. Therefore they believe it should be discouraged and made illegal, the same way many progressives believe firearms should be illegal since they are dangerous. Tribal groups are alive and well, and even if you dislike your opposing one you should try to at least understand their motives if only for selfish reasons.
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I thought they believed sex work is fundamentally sinful and that's why it should be banned. I guess we talked to different conservatives.
    - feet 4y ago
      Freedom of religion was supposed to be a thing in the US. Sin is not a good reason to make a law that binds those who don't follow the same religion
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        The first amendment restricts congress, not voters. Voters are free to vote for whatever politician they like for whatever reason they like, including religious reasons. The constitution does not demand that religious citizens demarcate and compartmentalize their religious and civic beliefs when they go to vote.
        feet 4y ago
        In theory it should restrict the representatives who got voted in from using their religious beliefs in legislating
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        It doesn't even do that. It restricts what kind of laws congress can create, not the reasoning congressmen use when choosing which laws to support. Completely secular and constitutional laws may be enacted by congressmen that have religious reasons to support that law; e.g. religious legislator may vote for a law against murder because murder is against their religion. The first amendment doesn't regulate the thoughts and reasoning of legislators; religious reasoning for secular laws are fine. And conversely, secular reasoning for religious laws doesn't make the law okay; a cynical atheist might say that religion is necessary for controlling the unwashed masses, but despite that secular reasoning, a law mandating a religion would still plainly violate the first amendment.
      - rendang 4y ago
        We fought a whole war to end chattel slavery because a movement largely composed of pious Christians believed it to be sinful.
        feet 4y ago
        There was also a large amount of Christians who thought slavery was permitted by the Bible so I don't think that argument has a leg to stand on
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    That is easily the most wildly inaccurate categorization of conservative positions on sex work I have ever, and am ever likely to, encounter. Conservatives (in the US anyway) view sex work as grossly amoral and sex workers as sub-human and a threat to the community. Collectively they don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about sex worker safety, they just want it banned outright through any means necessary.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      Fact. "for their own safety" is just the sales pitch / cover story.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      Opinions vary. Certainly many people, not just conservatives would think that sex work is immoral. I don't believe I've ever met someone that believes sex workers are subhuman, that reeks of hyperbole. The perception of sex work as a threat to community is probably wider spread still, in its current form it certainly isn't conducive to safety for anyone involved. Overall, you're simply setting up a strawman that poorly characterizes your opponents. There are many reasons why someone would oppose sex work, including concern over the safety of the sex workers. Even if it were fully legalized and regulated there would still be significant risk when you have two people who don't know each other well in a room alone together and questions of sex and money are money are involved. Especially if it is a physically stronger man with a woman. The more cogent arguments take that into consideration along with the other effects such as sex workers becoming trapped in the occupation, the poor prospects for aging workers to earn an income or be able to retire, the second order effects on the community which are poorly understood but could be far reaching, economic effects of making the occupation more available to the working age population who might otherwise pursue other careers, etc. All of that generally lines up with the conservative take on any change which is to ask "Are you sure you have considered all of the consequences?" and "Do the benefits outweigh the costs both short term and long term?".
      - ashout33 4y ago
        Really well thought out reply. Thanks for taking the time to write this, it really helped me understand conservative positions on not legalizing prostitution
  - echelon 4y ago
    Many religious conservatives aren't worried about the safety of sex workers. They believe the act is sin and shouldn't be tolerated in any context. Nevermind the fact that many religious historical figures were themselves prostitutes. Many conservatives, regardless of religion, believe sex work damages the traditional nuclear family structure. This is similar to the Roman decadence argument. Many liberals believe sex work is degrading to women. Nevermind the fact that legalizing it would empower workers, make it safer, and decrease trafficking. Nevermind the entire LGBT spectrum. There is entrenched opposition from all points on the spectrum. It's maddening that "vices" like sex and drugs that don't hurt anyone are so denigrated. The time is overdue for moving past these taboos.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Removing taboos around drug use has at best mixed results in, eg, Seattle and Portland. Perhaps there’s a reason that past societies invented the taboos to begin with.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I'm not sure it is this. Instead, I think it is that conservatives think that sex work is fundamentally immoral and that therefore it cannot be accepted by society, regardless of any harm or benefit created by this policy. It isn't "hey we believe that sex workers fundamentally cannot be protected from abuse" like something like child labor but is instead "sex work is moral degeneracy and must be stopped."
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      You’re not following their logic through: “Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms — which we’ve learned over time and encoded into our traditions. That things they call “moral degeneracy” fundamentally are harmful to a healthy society and to the people involved. That is, they think sex work is harmful to the people who participate and those nearby (eg, children of sex workers). Morality isn’t merely arbitrary and capricious rules, but an evolved code of conduct which tries to avoid things that are harmful. (Or at least, were — eg, prohibitions on pork.)
      - michaelt 4y ago
        Well, the modern conservative movement is an alliance of several groups. Some conservatives get from sex work to prohibition via moral degeneracy - perhaps they'll want strong moral fibre from their politicians and oppose all forms of corruption. Other conservatives reason via religion - perhaps they'll also oppose teaching evolution, and support 'in god we trust' signs in classrooms. Still other conservatives don't really care either way about prostitution, but have strong opinions on guns or taxes and kinda tolerate the rest of the conservative platform. And there are even conservatives who think the state has no business regulating what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors, and the smaller and less intrusive a state is the better; and they're frankly embarrassed their fellow conservatives are inviting the state into the bedroom.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > “Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms You're assuming the social conservative subscribes to a consequential ethics system. But a social conservative subscribing to deontological ethics is more likely, particularly if they're a religious social conservative.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse More like they believe sex work is inherently immoral and therefore sex workers deserve abuse.

> it almost forces sex workers onto the street or into brothels (which often take a huge chunk of each transaction) Exactly. It makes sex work more dangerous, not less.

formerly_proven 4y ago

Cake-eating-and-having exercise. To progressives: "See how progressive we are, not criminalizing sex work!" To conservatives: "See how conservative we are, endangering sex workers and making life hard for them!"

feet 4y ago
It's almost like conservatives only want to harm people who aren't like them. Weird
vorpalhex 4y ago
I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse. There is no safe way to do sex work that doesn't result in problems. Therefore they believe it should be discouraged and made illegal, the same way many progressives believe firearms should be illegal since they are dangerous. Tribal groups are alive and well, and even if you dislike your opposing one you should try to at least understand their motives if only for selfish reasons.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  I thought they believed sex work is fundamentally sinful and that's why it should be banned. I guess we talked to different conservatives.
  - feet 4y ago
    Freedom of religion was supposed to be a thing in the US. Sin is not a good reason to make a law that binds those who don't follow the same religion
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The first amendment restricts congress, not voters. Voters are free to vote for whatever politician they like for whatever reason they like, including religious reasons. The constitution does not demand that religious citizens demarcate and compartmentalize their religious and civic beliefs when they go to vote.
      - feet 4y ago
        In theory it should restrict the representatives who got voted in from using their religious beliefs in legislating
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        It doesn't even do that. It restricts what kind of laws congress can create, not the reasoning congressmen use when choosing which laws to support. Completely secular and constitutional laws may be enacted by congressmen that have religious reasons to support that law; e.g. religious legislator may vote for a law against murder because murder is against their religion. The first amendment doesn't regulate the thoughts and reasoning of legislators; religious reasoning for secular laws are fine. And conversely, secular reasoning for religious laws doesn't make the law okay; a cynical atheist might say that religion is necessary for controlling the unwashed masses, but despite that secular reasoning, a law mandating a religion would still plainly violate the first amendment.
    - rendang 4y ago
      We fought a whole war to end chattel slavery because a movement largely composed of pious Christians believed it to be sinful.
      - feet 4y ago
        There was also a large amount of Christians who thought slavery was permitted by the Bible so I don't think that argument has a leg to stand on
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  That is easily the most wildly inaccurate categorization of conservative positions on sex work I have ever, and am ever likely to, encounter. Conservatives (in the US anyway) view sex work as grossly amoral and sex workers as sub-human and a threat to the community. Collectively they don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about sex worker safety, they just want it banned outright through any means necessary.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Fact. "for their own safety" is just the sales pitch / cover story.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    Opinions vary. Certainly many people, not just conservatives would think that sex work is immoral. I don't believe I've ever met someone that believes sex workers are subhuman, that reeks of hyperbole. The perception of sex work as a threat to community is probably wider spread still, in its current form it certainly isn't conducive to safety for anyone involved. Overall, you're simply setting up a strawman that poorly characterizes your opponents. There are many reasons why someone would oppose sex work, including concern over the safety of the sex workers. Even if it were fully legalized and regulated there would still be significant risk when you have two people who don't know each other well in a room alone together and questions of sex and money are money are involved. Especially if it is a physically stronger man with a woman. The more cogent arguments take that into consideration along with the other effects such as sex workers becoming trapped in the occupation, the poor prospects for aging workers to earn an income or be able to retire, the second order effects on the community which are poorly understood but could be far reaching, economic effects of making the occupation more available to the working age population who might otherwise pursue other careers, etc. All of that generally lines up with the conservative take on any change which is to ask "Are you sure you have considered all of the consequences?" and "Do the benefits outweigh the costs both short term and long term?".
    - ashout33 4y ago
      Really well thought out reply. Thanks for taking the time to write this, it really helped me understand conservative positions on not legalizing prostitution
- echelon 4y ago
  Many religious conservatives aren't worried about the safety of sex workers. They believe the act is sin and shouldn't be tolerated in any context. Nevermind the fact that many religious historical figures were themselves prostitutes. Many conservatives, regardless of religion, believe sex work damages the traditional nuclear family structure. This is similar to the Roman decadence argument. Many liberals believe sex work is degrading to women. Nevermind the fact that legalizing it would empower workers, make it safer, and decrease trafficking. Nevermind the entire LGBT spectrum. There is entrenched opposition from all points on the spectrum. It's maddening that "vices" like sex and drugs that don't hurt anyone are so denigrated. The time is overdue for moving past these taboos.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Removing taboos around drug use has at best mixed results in, eg, Seattle and Portland. Perhaps there’s a reason that past societies invented the taboos to begin with.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I'm not sure it is this. Instead, I think it is that conservatives think that sex work is fundamentally immoral and that therefore it cannot be accepted by society, regardless of any harm or benefit created by this policy. It isn't "hey we believe that sex workers fundamentally cannot be protected from abuse" like something like child labor but is instead "sex work is moral degeneracy and must be stopped."
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    You’re not following their logic through: “Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms — which we’ve learned over time and encoded into our traditions. That things they call “moral degeneracy” fundamentally are harmful to a healthy society and to the people involved. That is, they think sex work is harmful to the people who participate and those nearby (eg, children of sex workers). Morality isn’t merely arbitrary and capricious rules, but an evolved code of conduct which tries to avoid things that are harmful. (Or at least, were — eg, prohibitions on pork.)
    - michaelt 4y ago
      Well, the modern conservative movement is an alliance of several groups. Some conservatives get from sex work to prohibition via moral degeneracy - perhaps they'll want strong moral fibre from their politicians and oppose all forms of corruption. Other conservatives reason via religion - perhaps they'll also oppose teaching evolution, and support 'in god we trust' signs in classrooms. Still other conservatives don't really care either way about prostitution, but have strong opinions on guns or taxes and kinda tolerate the rest of the conservative platform. And there are even conservatives who think the state has no business regulating what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors, and the smaller and less intrusive a state is the better; and they're frankly embarrassed their fellow conservatives are inviting the state into the bedroom.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > “Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms You're assuming the social conservative subscribes to a consequential ethics system. But a social conservative subscribing to deontological ethics is more likely, particularly if they're a religious social conservative.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse More like they believe sex work is inherently immoral and therefore sex workers deserve abuse.