3 ms·

Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced? What's the advantage to keeping that illegal? Demand do

Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced? What's the advantage to keeping that illegal? Demand doesn't evaporate because you declare it to be illegal. The sellers will still need to accomodate their buyers who - not wanting to be arrested - will prefer buying in areas where enforcement is lax with all the increased risk that entails.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
The utterly debased logic probably involves something like "empowering" the sex workers to report only their least favorite customers.
ldoughty 3y ago
The article seems to indicate that the goal is to stop double and triple penalizing sellers in the industry. The idea being that those on the selling side are often victims (of trafficking, abuse, no other choice, etc.).. and after they get caught, they become 'part of the system' and can't escape because no one will hire a criminal, or rent an apartment to a criminal, etc. Very similar to decriminalizing possession of drugs, or buying of drugs, but not the selling of drugs... Buyers are frequently victims of addiction, and ruining their life with criminal charges doesn't help them break the cycle The bill is not about trying to adjust the market, or to allow/accept prostitution, but to help victims of the trade.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  [flagged]
- trynumber9 3y ago
  I understand that argument for legalizing selling. But keeping the purchase of sex illegal means buyers will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment. If their goal is to protect victims then full legalization goes even further than this half-measure.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    > But keeping buying sex illegal means they will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment. This statement has the same fallacy that the following statement does: "Keeping child labor illegal means children will choose to work in places where they feel less safe from the law. This will make young children who feel they have no choice but to work in a factory operate in a less safe environment." The very fact that a certain choice is legal increases the economic incentives to pressure people into making that choice; in contrast, removing a choice by making it illegal incentivizes employers to offer alternate choices that are potentially less exploitative. When child labor is illegal, employers are incentivized to pay their workers a high enough wage to support the whole family without children having to work. When the option of child labor is taken off the table, workers end up in a better negotiating position. The same is true of prostitution. When people can make money legally off of prostitution, they will be incentivized to go into the prostitution business and hire prostitutes. When they can't do that, they will be incentivized to go into a different line of work, and create employment opportunities for women that are less inherently exploitative.
    - trynumber9 3y ago
      No, that is an entirely unrelated scenario. People will not be flocking to buy sex simply because it is legal. There's plenty of free ways to get it. And paying is widely stigmatized as a result. They'll flock to where there enforcement is most lax (e.g. legally Thailand or illegally Dubai) and possibly where no one can identify them. If it was simply about reducing demand set a high minimum price. When a buyer is caught paying less than minimum price, fine them. It's obviously about something else. >Inherently exploitative Ah here we go. The real crux... moralism. It's exploitation at any price even if a fully capable adult makes the choice.
    - gameman144 3y ago
      The child labor analogy doesn't really match up here. The parent comment is saying that if prostitution is legal but hiring prostitutes is not, then people will only hire prostitutes in areas where law enforcement is weak. A comparable analogy would be that if laboring as a child is not criminally illegal (which it is not) but hiring children as laborers is illegal (which it is), then the people that hire child laborers will be doing so in areas where law enforcement is weak. This seems to be both a pretty apt analogy, and also seems to be clearly true in the child labor case.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lelanthran 3y ago
  That doesn't answer the question of why criminalise it at all. By making the purchaser the criminal, you now have the additional problem of forcing sellers to take steps to assure their buyers safety, which would include keeping silent about the majority of what they do. The solution is to decriminalise the transaction, not to decriminilise one party to the transaction.
yes_really 3y ago
There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men." Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  i don't read a lot of really shitty takes on hn (though they have increased a lot in the last 10 years or so) but this is up there.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  I wish it were so innocent. In reality it's libertarians literally hard for legalizing their prostitution startup dreams. These people would pimp their mother for a higher credit score, with their mother's consent of course.
- hlllpn 3y ago
  [flagged]
lelanthran 3y ago
> Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced? It's the modern puritanism. They want to stop sales of sex. "Because human trafficking" is their equivalent of "think of the children". Their stated reasons is not their reasons, its to shutdown discussion by shaming anyone who doesn't feel that selling of sex should be criminalised.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

The utterly debased logic probably involves something like "empowering" the sex workers to report only their least favorite customers.

ldoughty 3y ago

The article seems to indicate that the goal is to stop double and triple penalizing sellers in the industry. The idea being that those on the selling side are often victims (of trafficking, abuse, no other choice, etc.).. and after they get caught, they become 'part of the system' and can't escape because no one will hire a criminal, or rent an apartment to a criminal, etc. Very similar to decriminalizing possession of drugs, or buying of drugs, but not the selling of drugs... Buyers are frequently victims of addiction, and ruining their life with criminal charges doesn't help them break the cycle The bill is not about trying to adjust the market, or to allow/accept prostitution, but to help victims of the trade.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
[flagged]
trynumber9 3y ago
I understand that argument for legalizing selling. But keeping the purchase of sex illegal means buyers will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment. If their goal is to protect victims then full legalization goes even further than this half-measure.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > But keeping buying sex illegal means they will choose to buy sex in areas where they feel safe from the law. This will make people who have no choice but to sell sex operate in a less safe environment. This statement has the same fallacy that the following statement does: "Keeping child labor illegal means children will choose to work in places where they feel less safe from the law. This will make young children who feel they have no choice but to work in a factory operate in a less safe environment." The very fact that a certain choice is legal increases the economic incentives to pressure people into making that choice; in contrast, removing a choice by making it illegal incentivizes employers to offer alternate choices that are potentially less exploitative. When child labor is illegal, employers are incentivized to pay their workers a high enough wage to support the whole family without children having to work. When the option of child labor is taken off the table, workers end up in a better negotiating position. The same is true of prostitution. When people can make money legally off of prostitution, they will be incentivized to go into the prostitution business and hire prostitutes. When they can't do that, they will be incentivized to go into a different line of work, and create employment opportunities for women that are less inherently exploitative.
  - trynumber9 3y ago
    No, that is an entirely unrelated scenario. People will not be flocking to buy sex simply because it is legal. There's plenty of free ways to get it. And paying is widely stigmatized as a result. They'll flock to where there enforcement is most lax (e.g. legally Thailand or illegally Dubai) and possibly where no one can identify them. If it was simply about reducing demand set a high minimum price. When a buyer is caught paying less than minimum price, fine them. It's obviously about something else. >Inherently exploitative Ah here we go. The real crux... moralism. It's exploitation at any price even if a fully capable adult makes the choice.
  - gameman144 3y ago
    The child labor analogy doesn't really match up here. The parent comment is saying that if prostitution is legal but hiring prostitutes is not, then people will only hire prostitutes in areas where law enforcement is weak. A comparable analogy would be that if laboring as a child is not criminally illegal (which it is not) but hiring children as laborers is illegal (which it is), then the people that hire child laborers will be doing so in areas where law enforcement is weak. This seems to be both a pretty apt analogy, and also seems to be clearly true in the child labor case.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 3y ago
That doesn't answer the question of why criminalise it at all. By making the purchaser the criminal, you now have the additional problem of forcing sellers to take steps to assure their buyers safety, which would include keeping silent about the majority of what they do. The solution is to decriminalise the transaction, not to decriminilise one party to the transaction.

yes_really 3y ago

There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men." Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.

asadotzler 3y ago
i don't read a lot of really shitty takes on hn (though they have increased a lot in the last 10 years or so) but this is up there.
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
I wish it were so innocent. In reality it's libertarians literally hard for legalizing their prostitution startup dreams. These people would pimp their mother for a higher credit score, with their mother's consent of course.
hlllpn 3y ago
[flagged]

lelanthran 3y ago

> Well hold on then, why is it still illegal to buy sex from a consenting adult who isn't being coerced? It's the modern puritanism. They want to stop sales of sex. "Because human trafficking" is their equivalent of "think of the children". Their stated reasons is not their reasons, its to shutdown discussion by shaming anyone who doesn't feel that selling of sex should be criminalised.