5 ms·

The goal of the bill is not about bodily autonomy... The article makes it clear that the goal is to stop penalizing people who are very often victims (of traffi

The goal of the bill is not about bodily autonomy... The article makes it clear that the goal is to stop penalizing people who are very often victims (of trafficking or circumstance). They are not trying to stop the trade, legalize the trade, etc... They are trying to make it so that those who sell their body are not 'locked' into the trade because they can't get a job, an apartment, etc. and escape the cycle of selling -> jail -> selling -> etc... Even if they get help, it's hard to continue your life if you can't find a job or sign a contract for a safe place to stay.

rayiner 3y ago
Decriminalizing selling sex is something social libertarians and sex-negative feminists can agree on. But the latter, unlike the former, don’t regard it as a half measure, or think about it in terms of “bodily autonomy.” They view the female prostitute as the victim of male aggression. It doesn’t make sense to punish the victim, but it does make sense to punish the perpetrator.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  You’re responding to a poster called ‘ldoughty’, not Andrea Dworkin. Who said anything about sex-negative feminists (or social liberatians, for that matter)
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    As the GP points out, the fact that buying sex remains criminalized means that this is, indeed, a sex-negative approach.
    - fdsio 3y ago
      This approach is women-positive, not sex-negative. Here's an account of the awful reality of when prostitution is fully legalised: https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-prostitution-by-former-receptionist-presents-harrowing-reality/ https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-pr...
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        >adoptnordic The nordic approach is a failure. Prostitutes are still marginalized, they're still stalked by police, and they still have to employ a great deal of subterfuge to make ends meet.
        fdsio 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        I'm commenting on their whole shtick. I did skim the article, and there are some bad anecdotes in there. But I don't generally put a lot of credence into a site that's designed to only offer one side of an argument. And I fail to see how the claim that things are bad in legal brothels is supposed to imply that illegal brothels would somehow be a better situation. There are other solutions to that problem. And the real problem will always be human trafficking, which is better addressed at the source, not the destination. Because the market will always be there, that's just harsh reality, and I don't like it either, but that doesn't justify covering my ears and pretending it's gonna change. That is only apt to lead to bad policy.
      - potatochup 3y ago
        While I do agree the conditions described on that article are deplorable, I think the same kind of conditions would apply (if not worse) if prostitution was criminalized. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening.
    - WeylandYutani 3y ago
      Rich old people with college age boyfriends and girlfriends aren't going away. Sex is still for trade and always will be.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I’m elaborating on his explanation that “bodily autonomy” (i.e. social libertarianism) isn’t the point of the bill. Lots of people—in particular, most women, reject the social libertarian view that prostitution is acceptable: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... Many of those people, however, would agree (like Dworkin) that the reason prostitution is wrong is because it is violence against women. The upshot of that is you can get enough support to pass a law decriminalizing selling of sex (something social libertarians and many sex-negative feminists could agree on), while lacking enough support to decriminalize buying sex (which only social libertarians would support).
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      the harm reduction approach actually satisfies both, but the latter group really have no purpose aside from “prostitution is wrong” and all the “becauses” are observations that will continue shifting because the goal posts only move towards using the state to criminalize transactional sex
    - quickthrowman 3y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to explain, I didn’t tie bodily autonomy to social libertarianism when I read your initial post. I could’ve been more constructive with my question/post, my bad.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 3y ago

Decriminalizing selling sex is something social libertarians and sex-negative feminists can agree on. But the latter, unlike the former, don’t regard it as a half measure, or think about it in terms of “bodily autonomy.” They view the female prostitute as the victim of male aggression. It doesn’t make sense to punish the victim, but it does make sense to punish the perpetrator.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
quickthrowman 3y ago
You’re responding to a poster called ‘ldoughty’, not Andrea Dworkin. Who said anything about sex-negative feminists (or social liberatians, for that matter)
- resolutebat 3y ago
  As the GP points out, the fact that buying sex remains criminalized means that this is, indeed, a sex-negative approach.
  - fdsio 3y ago
    This approach is women-positive, not sex-negative. Here's an account of the awful reality of when prostitution is fully legalised: https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-prostitution-by-former-receptionist-presents-harrowing-reality/ https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-pr...
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      >adoptnordic The nordic approach is a failure. Prostitutes are still marginalized, they're still stalked by police, and they still have to employ a great deal of subterfuge to make ends meet.
      - fdsio 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        I'm commenting on their whole shtick. I did skim the article, and there are some bad anecdotes in there. But I don't generally put a lot of credence into a site that's designed to only offer one side of an argument. And I fail to see how the claim that things are bad in legal brothels is supposed to imply that illegal brothels would somehow be a better situation. There are other solutions to that problem. And the real problem will always be human trafficking, which is better addressed at the source, not the destination. Because the market will always be there, that's just harsh reality, and I don't like it either, but that doesn't justify covering my ears and pretending it's gonna change. That is only apt to lead to bad policy.
    - potatochup 3y ago
      While I do agree the conditions described on that article are deplorable, I think the same kind of conditions would apply (if not worse) if prostitution was criminalized. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening.
  - WeylandYutani 3y ago
    Rich old people with college age boyfriends and girlfriends aren't going away. Sex is still for trade and always will be.
- rayiner 3y ago
  I’m elaborating on his explanation that “bodily autonomy” (i.e. social libertarianism) isn’t the point of the bill. Lots of people—in particular, most women, reject the social libertarian view that prostitution is acceptable: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... Many of those people, however, would agree (like Dworkin) that the reason prostitution is wrong is because it is violence against women. The upshot of that is you can get enough support to pass a law decriminalizing selling of sex (something social libertarians and many sex-negative feminists could agree on), while lacking enough support to decriminalize buying sex (which only social libertarians would support).
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    the harm reduction approach actually satisfies both, but the latter group really have no purpose aside from “prostitution is wrong” and all the “becauses” are observations that will continue shifting because the goal posts only move towards using the state to criminalize transactional sex
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to explain, I didn’t tie bodily autonomy to social libertarianism when I read your initial post. I could’ve been more constructive with my question/post, my bad.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]