4 ms·

Tobacco is tolerated, not celebrated. There is a large gap between someone's vices being no one's business and actively celebrating them.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
If you enjoy the status quo on tobacco, the people you have to thank for it are strong, dedicated anti-smoking advocates who think smoking is absolutely their business and would happily ban it if that were politically feasible. It used to be that smoking was celebrated and as a consequence happened everywhere. Stepping into a restaurant, bar, or airplane meant breathing in clouds of cigarette smoke. Smokers at the time would argue, quite passionately, that because their vices are none of your business it's unfair to try and drive smoking out of public life. I'm torn on whether it should be completely illegal, because I've seen some kinda persuasive arguments in the direction of decriminalization. In particular, you don't want people who do sex work to feel like they can't get help without going to jail. But I'm confident that "ban it all" is much closer to the truth than "none of our business".
- Volundr 4y ago
  If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is already not part of public life.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    There are people out there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-positivity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-...) advocating for prostitution as a reasonable career path which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. I don't think people are gonna start plowing each other in public, but I think there's a very real possibility that in a decade or two it could be considered strange and prudish to tell your friends and family that they shouldn't make an OnlyFans. I've seen some spaces online that are already at that point, although it's always hard to know whether online subcultures represent anything in the real world.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      What if they did? In what way does this harm you? At one time they said the same thing about exposing any skin at all even at the beach. Every human, yes including children gasp has a body with body parts, so mere exposure to the sight of them and knowledge of their existance is not harmful. Sight of the act of sex is merely more of the same. Kids on farms see it every day from birth. At worst it's perhaps distasteful or lacks appropriate decorum in some contexts. I find practically everyone to lack taste or decorum in most WalMarts. It's not a valid argument. It's only worth about as much legal consequence as defecating in the wrong place. In fact defecating is worth more since it at least carries an actual public health consequence to others beyond "I don't want to see that" "I don't want to see that" is an utterly invalid demand, since anyone can say that about anyone for any reason. They used to be able to say it about merely being a mixed race couple in public, or hell a lot of people still do say it about gay couples or trans individuals merely existing in the room. It is ever so slowly being recognized that in order to try to claim any kind of say over anyone else like that, you have to show harm, and no one can show any harm from a person merely existing as gay or trans or black or female etc. Anything you can say about how obviously depraved and harmful it would be to see naked people or sex acts in public, used to be said about all kinds of ordinary harmless things. People were imprisoned or killed over nothing but "I don't want to see that" and "I don't like it that that exists" without any actual harm to justify it. Talking this way about sex work and evidense of sex work being visible in public, is exactly the same.
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        I don't think there can be a rigid distinction between "I don't want to see that" and "actual harm". We can presumably agree that it would be wrong if Google put up posters of naked women all over the office, and that the EEOC is right to prohibit such things as a hostile work environment. But what "actual harm" could you point to beyond the fact that the posters are offensive and people don't want to see them? I understand the appeal of being able to take a "live and let live" attitude without considering these kind of tricky values judgments, but I just don't see how you can avoid it.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

If you enjoy the status quo on tobacco, the people you have to thank for it are strong, dedicated anti-smoking advocates who think smoking is absolutely their business and would happily ban it if that were politically feasible. It used to be that smoking was celebrated and as a consequence happened everywhere. Stepping into a restaurant, bar, or airplane meant breathing in clouds of cigarette smoke. Smokers at the time would argue, quite passionately, that because their vices are none of your business it's unfair to try and drive smoking out of public life. I'm torn on whether it should be completely illegal, because I've seen some kinda persuasive arguments in the direction of decriminalization. In particular, you don't want people who do sex work to feel like they can't get help without going to jail. But I'm confident that "ban it all" is much closer to the truth than "none of our business".

Volundr 4y ago
If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is already not part of public life.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  There are people out there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-positivity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-...) advocating for prostitution as a reasonable career path which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. I don't think people are gonna start plowing each other in public, but I think there's a very real possibility that in a decade or two it could be considered strange and prudish to tell your friends and family that they shouldn't make an OnlyFans. I've seen some spaces online that are already at that point, although it's always hard to know whether online subcultures represent anything in the real world.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    What if they did? In what way does this harm you? At one time they said the same thing about exposing any skin at all even at the beach. Every human, yes including children gasp has a body with body parts, so mere exposure to the sight of them and knowledge of their existance is not harmful. Sight of the act of sex is merely more of the same. Kids on farms see it every day from birth. At worst it's perhaps distasteful or lacks appropriate decorum in some contexts. I find practically everyone to lack taste or decorum in most WalMarts. It's not a valid argument. It's only worth about as much legal consequence as defecating in the wrong place. In fact defecating is worth more since it at least carries an actual public health consequence to others beyond "I don't want to see that" "I don't want to see that" is an utterly invalid demand, since anyone can say that about anyone for any reason. They used to be able to say it about merely being a mixed race couple in public, or hell a lot of people still do say it about gay couples or trans individuals merely existing in the room. It is ever so slowly being recognized that in order to try to claim any kind of say over anyone else like that, you have to show harm, and no one can show any harm from a person merely existing as gay or trans or black or female etc. Anything you can say about how obviously depraved and harmful it would be to see naked people or sex acts in public, used to be said about all kinds of ordinary harmless things. People were imprisoned or killed over nothing but "I don't want to see that" and "I don't like it that that exists" without any actual harm to justify it. Talking this way about sex work and evidense of sex work being visible in public, is exactly the same.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      I don't think there can be a rigid distinction between "I don't want to see that" and "actual harm". We can presumably agree that it would be wrong if Google put up posters of naked women all over the office, and that the EEOC is right to prohibit such things as a hostile work environment. But what "actual harm" could you point to beyond the fact that the posters are offensive and people don't want to see them? I understand the appeal of being able to take a "live and let live" attitude without considering these kind of tricky values judgments, but I just don't see how you can avoid it.