3 ms·

>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 re

>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.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        People make that argument, but if you see how they act, they do not treat it like slavery outside of their arguments. To bring up another hot topic to show a comparison (because I am more familiar making this point with the other topic), look at a group of pro-life people who call abortion murder, yet do not react the same as if it were. They do not treat those who participate in abortion as child murderers, they do not go through the same extremes that people go through to stop child murder, they do not even fully support rhetoric to treat it like murder (those who seek to outlaw abortions almost never support it being treated as murder with the same penalties, including the doctor being charged similar to a hitman and the mother similar to someone who paid a hitman for a hit). Look how they will treat individuals who had abortions but then changed their view to pro-life compared to how they treat those who have committed acts such as legally murdering a child (or things of near the same nature). Yes, they say it is murder, but the vast majority do not actually act as if it is. In the same way, those who say economic coercion is slavery do not act as if they were slaves.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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 "Financial coercion" inferred from material need isn't generally recognized as voiding consent in any other domain where consent is critical (e.g., marriage, contracts in general -- labor included, but not exclusively, etc.) If "financial coercion" were treated as a real form of coercion that voided consent, capitalism -- even in the moderated form seen in modern mixed economies -- would collapse entirely.

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.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      People make that argument, but if you see how they act, they do not treat it like slavery outside of their arguments. To bring up another hot topic to show a comparison (because I am more familiar making this point with the other topic), look at a group of pro-life people who call abortion murder, yet do not react the same as if it were. They do not treat those who participate in abortion as child murderers, they do not go through the same extremes that people go through to stop child murder, they do not even fully support rhetoric to treat it like murder (those who seek to outlaw abortions almost never support it being treated as murder with the same penalties, including the doctor being charged similar to a hitman and the mother similar to someone who paid a hitman for a hit). Look how they will treat individuals who had abortions but then changed their view to pro-life compared to how they treat those who have committed acts such as legally murdering a child (or things of near the same nature). Yes, they say it is murder, but the vast majority do not actually act as if it is. In the same way, those who say economic coercion is slavery do not act as if they were slaves.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 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 "Financial coercion" inferred from material need isn't generally recognized as voiding consent in any other domain where consent is critical (e.g., marriage, contracts in general -- labor included, but not exclusively, etc.) If "financial coercion" were treated as a real form of coercion that voided consent, capitalism -- even in the moderated form seen in modern mixed economies -- would collapse entirely.