18 ms·

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 o

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.
- orwin 3y ago
  This has the advantage of curbing 'enthusiasm' of buyers too. It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal and what you're client's doing isn't.
  - ernst_klim 3y ago
    > It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal It's harder to combat rape when you have to meet client in a more secret place, and when you can't take a photo of client's id. So no, in fact actual sex workers hate nordic model since it pushes them towards more precarious position while declaring the opposite.
    - orwin 3y ago
      I expressed myself poorly. I agree that ideally, sex work shouldn't be illegal to either provide or buy. But the nordic model is better that the criminalization of sex workers imho.
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.

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.
orwin 3y ago
This has the advantage of curbing 'enthusiasm' of buyers too. It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal and what you're client's doing isn't.
- ernst_klim 3y ago
  > It's easier to complain about rape when you're a sex worker if what you're doing is legal It's harder to combat rape when you have to meet client in a more secret place, and when you can't take a photo of client's id. So no, in fact actual sex workers hate nordic model since it pushes them towards more precarious position while declaring the opposite.
  - orwin 3y ago
    I expressed myself poorly. I agree that ideally, sex work shouldn't be illegal to either provide or buy. But the nordic model is better that the criminalization of sex workers imho.

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.