6 ms·

Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly ass

Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly assigns the crime to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Its perfectly reasonable to conceive of a system of prostitution where everything is consensual and everyone is protected, which is what we have for alcohol and what people are fighting for with drugs. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Child porn cannot exist under these terms. Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot participate in the creation of pornography consensually. So to compare prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or prostitution to prohibition of child pornography doesn't hold up.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited. >Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent Links? Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult. But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition? And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick. Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.
- detcader 12y ago
  >what about those who are financially coerced into it? You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    What kind of reply to that point are you looking for? Not asking to nitpick or anything, but I'm curious what kind of engagement you'd like to see.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      I only see three possibilities. 1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why). 2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of). 3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given. 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited. >Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent Links? Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult. But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition? And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick. Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.

detcader 12y ago
>what about those who are financially coerced into it? You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
- Frondo 12y ago
  What kind of reply to that point are you looking for? Not asking to nitpick or anything, but I'm curious what kind of engagement you'd like to see.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    I only see three possibilities. 1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why). 2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of). 3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given. 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.