Sex work
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:54:56 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Sex work
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8
Author Topic: Sex work  (Read 10215 times)
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: July 10, 2015, 06:26:43 PM »
« edited: July 10, 2015, 06:40:59 PM by Famous Mortimer »

Basically, yes, sex work is more degrading than stocking shelves (which is still somewhat degrading). But as long as the rate of pay increases with the undesirableness, that's fine.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: July 10, 2015, 06:31:47 PM »

You know, Famous Mortimer, you're not entirely wrong. If we legalize, ideally we could crack down on violence and STDs involved in it typically, and maybe we could improve the living conditions of those working in this industry. Personally, I have a problem with the message that sends and I find it very troubling that an overwhelming supermajority of women who are prostitutes say they would prefer to exit the industry, so it doesn't seem like our response to that should be to legalize.

BUT, I understand your stance on this issue and why you hold that stance. I respect it, and, partially because you're a Democrat Tongue, I'd be willing to just agree to disagree. I don't think you're any closer to agreeing with my stance on the issue, and I'm no closer to agreeing with yours.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: July 10, 2015, 07:09:16 PM »

Fair enough. I was pretty tired anyway.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: July 11, 2015, 06:27:07 AM »

Regardless of whether or not the pro-legalization arguments are right-wing (it's ridiculous to say that they are IMO), that doesn't work as a legitimate refutation of it. Chad, you're talking about the patriarchal mindset being encouraged by prostitution, but you haven't really addressed that the Nordic Model decriminalization you advocate for does nothing to address patriarchy and exploitation of women. It doesn't arrest sex workers themselves; that's common sense. It does continue to allow sex work to exist as a black market industry.

The vast majority of people employed in sex work would not choose to be in the business, yes. Huh Is that what's controversial?

It feels like with the "legaliseit" brigade you can quote evidence all day, only to be met with the same trite ideological arguments treating sex like cannabis or some other tradable commodity.

Sex has a lot of societal connotations attached to it. We can argue all day about if it is good or bad to dress sex up in such a pedastel, but that is an academic discussion. In real life, sex work is different from flipping burgers. I know LOGICBOT3000 will come around to impersonate Spock and say "but crabcake that is firmly illogical". In answer,  that's all very good and great, but tell society that. Sex Work is different from other work, because in the eyes of society it is no matter what poxy hypothetical regulations the government places on it.

Legalisation and regulation seems like such a good idea in theory. I know why people are attached to it - it's elegant, it seems to please all sides and it definitely seems to have helped with ganja. Unfortunately, it has not lived up to its promise. We must change our minds when confronted with evidence, people.


I'm not sure I understand what you want people to change their mind to, since you advocated for "cautious legalization" on the first page.

Partly I am being terrible and playing both sides, but partly I remain unconvinced by both sides. I loathe to use that horrid descriptor "pragmatic" but a lot of people with horses in this fight seem to be arguing from an idealogical standpoint. I have no idealogical opposition to prostitution, but all the evidence I've seen is that it's a poor mechanism to reduce the societal ills of an unregulated black market sex industry. If a wealth of evidence came out tomorrow suggesting that it was great, then great. but no, people don't use evidence in this fight - it's all the government should never ban things, banning things never, ever works etc.

"Cautious legalisation" is a moderate hero position that recognises society places sex on such a pedastel that legalisation of prostitution without simultaneously trying to  (for lack of a better phrase) end the patriarchal mindset that influences everyone's positions towards prostitution. Much as Cory et al deny it, they have been raised and conditioned as humans. They would be unwise to forget that.

However I also feel the Nordic model is also spotty in its execution and is not exactly perfect iself.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: July 11, 2015, 10:17:41 AM »

To clarify my position on this matter -

As long as we live in a capitalist society, I reject attempts by the capitalist state to control consensual (while again realizing that very few things under capitalism are actually 'consensual' in any real sense) sexual activity, no matter the grounds on which they attempt to do so, be they using the frame of family values or feminism. Likewise, I also reject all attempts by the capitalist state to force certain segments of the workforce into a de facto slave market, as that is inevitably the end result of the criminalization of prostitution. On those grounds, I reject the criminalization of sex work in a capitalist society.

As for the society that I'd like to see come into being? The transition from capitalism will inevitably require a total deconstruction of those structures that capitalism leaves behind. These will have a powerful pull in society (ideas such as racism, sexism, etc.) and will be only fully rooted out in economic conditions that allow for their being pulled up from the root. So I have no doubt that sex work, being one of the leftovers from thousands of years of class based society, will stay with us, at least until we are able to fully smash the markers of our time as residents of a class based society. In that case, during the transition period, it will be important to make sure that sex work is done safely and regulated to prevent the spread of disease, ideally through some kind of state-owned (but democratically managed) brothel system. This too would eventually be done away with as the distortions of sexuality engendered by class society melt away, the patriarchical family unit is done away with (as the entirety of women's oppression is centered in their subservient role in the family unit), and production hits a level that allows the state to wither away along with the money and exchange based economy.

Will that end sex work? Maybe it would. I'm not so sure. In a hypothetical communist (that is, post-scarcity) economy, work itself would have minimal importance and would probably vanish altogether. But perhaps a communist society, in guaranteeing all abundance and eliminating privation, might engender new kinds of competitive behaviors, albeit ones not grounded in accumulation. We might end up in a society wherein prestige or respect becomes the 'currency' to be accumulated, and favors might inevitably be traded here or there in that regard involving sex. I can't predict the future. But I can say that if it does survive, the transition to communism will ultimately divorce 'sex work' from its traditional role as a specific kind of slavery known almost only to women, as communism will inevitably deconstruct the gender roles that class society has created over the thousands of years since the Neolithic Revolution.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: July 11, 2015, 09:10:41 PM »
« Edited: July 11, 2015, 10:21:04 PM by Cory »

You know, Famous Mortimer, you're not entirely wrong. If we legalize, ideally we could crack down on violence and STDs involved in it typically, and maybe we could improve the living conditions of those working in this industry. Personally, I have a problem with the message that sends and I find it very troubling that an overwhelming supermajority of women who are prostitutes say they would prefer to exit the industry, so it doesn't seem like our response to that should be to legalize.

Finally it comes out. People made this point a million times over and you just ignored it and claimed to have "heard no reason to legalize it" over and over again. The reason you are against reforms that would actively benefit sex workers is so you can feel self-righteous about yourself.

You constantly claimed that your personal feelings about why prostitution is inherently bad constituted "evidence". You let your personal feelings cancel out logical and common-sense reforms that would save lives, reduce the spread of disease, crack down on sex trafficking, and protect sex workers from abuse. Instead you made arguments that relate more to Victorian conservative attitudes in regards to sex while having the audacity to accuse others of having a "right-wing" opinion on the matter, when clearly they did not.

You're no better then the religious nutcases who are against teaching comprehensive sex ed and birth control for similar reasons couched in different language ("Sex is sacred!" "Think about the message it sends!").

You argued in bad faith, outright ignored valid points against you, and engaged in rank intellectual dishonesty by trying to shame your opponents by likening them to "right-wingers".

Shame on you.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2015, 04:46:38 AM »

Cory, you're reacting very emotionally. It's probably best to act more logically and less based on your fealz. Just saying Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2015, 01:07:58 PM »


I don't think you're in a position to say that about anyone.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2015, 01:26:17 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2015, 01:29:37 PM by Marokai Besieged »

After reading through this thread I don't understand what Crabcake's position is since he just seems to be here to make fun of both sides, and Madeline's position is moralistic pap that even openly admits it can't really argue about the issue from any other position than "I don't like sex being commodified" which, hey, good for you.

People can make fun of Cory all they want (and they do!) but I find the arguments against his and TNF's position here to be very strange. I honestly can't make heads or tails of them and I really, really tried separating the facetiousness and personal moral codes from the posts to see what was left. There wasn't much.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: July 12, 2015, 02:39:34 PM »

To be fair, when both sides start out convinced they're in the right ;discussion is rather irrelevant.

I take a holistic approach to my opinions. We are faced with societal ills (e.g. the abuse and trafficking of vulnerable women and men for Prostitution); we come up with various mechanisms to end or diminish these ills (the Dutch model, the Nordic model), we see how they work in practice and we chose the method which reduces the social ill the most while having the least negative repercussions. In my opinion, that (in contempary society) is a slightly modified Nordic Model. (Which isn't to say that legalisation should never happen - just that I see no other sustainable mechanism to legalise prostitution without raising demand for the trafficked.)

It's of course easier to make fun of Cory et al. because they laughably claim to be 'super logical!!' which is always funny, especially in light of Cory's emotional outburst above.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2015, 02:55:14 PM »

This is actually a very confusing and difficult issue on which I tend to default to leaving things as they are because the current system of having prostitution illegal mostly works for the vast majority of people. What is the real pressing need for reform to the system?

I could see the case for legalizing highly-regulated indoor prostitution (brothels) like some parts of Nevada have, even though I don't really see a pressing need for a change in the laws at present. Most people talking about the issue in this thread, though, don't bother to make the indoor/outdoor distinction and it leads me to suspect that some of the pro people are talking about legalizing streetwalking, which I am most definitely opposed to.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: July 12, 2015, 03:30:33 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2015, 03:37:19 PM by sex-negative feminist prude »

After reading through this thread I don't understand what Crabcake's position is since he just seems to be here to make fun of both sides, and Madeline's position is moralistic pap that even openly admits it can't really argue about the issue from any other position than "I don't like sex being commodified" which, hey, good for you.

Did I ever claim otherwise? I explicitly said that I don't favor keeping prostitution a crime, I just think it's repugnant to act as if it's completely unremarkable, unexceptionable, and morally neutral. That's all I was ever trying to say.

I will however also say for what has to be at least the third time on this forum, possibly the third time in this thread, that I find the sensibility that one's moral viewpoints should have no place in one's attitudes towards policy, such that 'moralistic' can be uncomplicatedly an insult in this context, deeply, deeply disturbing. I don't like sex being commodified, it's important to me that sex not be commodified, and I don't want to live in an environment in which the commodification of sex is commonly accepted. Of course this is going to make me less than thrilled with the idea of legally condoning the commodification of sex, even if I recognize that it's for the best.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: July 12, 2015, 03:30:46 PM »

This is actually a very confusing and difficult issue on which I tend to default to leaving things as they are because the current system of having prostitution illegal mostly works for the vast majority of people. What is the real pressing need for reform to the system?

I could see the case for legalizing highly-regulated indoor prostitution (brothels) like some parts of Nevada have, even though I don't really see a pressing need for a change in the laws at present. Most people talking about the issue in this thread, though, don't bother to make the indoor/outdoor distinction and it leads me to suspect that some of the pro people are talking about legalizing streetwalking, which I am most definitely opposed to.

That's...basically the same argument the Republicans used on health care.

A sort of Moderate Heroish but in place in much of the world including most western countries system is that simply buying or selling sexual services is not illegal per se, but that most activities associated with it, including things like keeping brothels and streetwalking is, which thus allows the negative effects to be targeted without having some awkward laws that make something perfectly legal only until money is involved or criminalization of activity consisting only of consenting adults. I'd prefer some type of more regulated framework personally though, but this at least gets past the main issue I have of setting a fairly arbitrary criteria that something is perfectly legal unless any money is involved in which case it's not.

Of course in the Internet era this basically is the de facto state of it now as Torie stated, although I'll point out that as unenforceable as prostitution laws are when the Internet exists, they weren't particularly all that enforceable prior.

It's also rarely stated, but I think important to note, that many US cities have actually moved to a sort of "under the table" form of regulation, for example I read that the city of San Antonio requires anyone advertising services as an "escort" to get a license, which requires checks such as confirmation of citizenship and STD testing, and agreeing not to target licensed escorts in prostitution stings, thus resulting in legal and regulated prostitution in all but name. Minneapolis has zoning laws which prohibit "massage parlors" in certain areas and allowing them in some specially zoned areas only for "sexually oriented businesses" while specifically carving out an exception for "therapeutic massage businesses", an essential admission of what happens in the zoned massage parlors but working to keep them out of certain areas regardless. Why I think this is important is because it's basically admission by those cities that full criminalization hardly eliminates the business, and results in lack of regulation which makes it more harmful.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: July 12, 2015, 04:08:44 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2015, 04:10:34 PM by Marokai Besieged »

Madeline I apologize for being overly flip toward your position on this. I recognize you're ultimately on the right side of the issue even if you are personally morally conflicted and I don't mean to try and take that away from you, or anyone. I certainly don't like prostitution.

To be fair, when both sides start out convinced they're in the right ;discussion is rather irrelevant.

I take a holistic approach to my opinions. We are faced with societal ills (e.g. the abuse and trafficking of vulnerable women and men for Prostitution); we come up with various mechanisms to end or diminish these ills (the Dutch model, the Nordic model), we see how they work in practice and we chose the method which reduces the social ill the most while having the least negative repercussions. In my opinion, that (in contempary society) is a slightly modified Nordic Model. (Which isn't to say that legalisation should never happen - just that I see no other sustainable mechanism to legalise prostitution without raising demand for the trafficked.)

The reason I feel dismissive of this as an emotional appeal to consequence is because, and I'm trying to word this appropriately and I don't mean to diminish the severity of human trafficking so bear with me here, I don't see why a potential increase in incidence of a terrible social ill is necessarily relevant to the question of legality. There are a lot of terrible things, legal and illegal, that are enabled by the legality of a related substance or activity but the quest to deal with those things can be acted out just fine without prohibition.

I know you understand this, or almost certainly understand this, when it comes to drug use. It's a reasonable assumption that there would probably be less drunk driving incidents, less drunken brawls, etc if alcohol consumption was not legal, but obviously we can still effectively address those social problems without resorting to criminalizing the substance itself. I realize comparisons to drugs is pretty old hat at this point but the logic behind it isn't really all that different. In a liberal society we accept the potential for negative consequences to free actions and take separate measures to focus specifically on bad parts without throwing the baby out with the bath water. I have yet to see why this issue is the exception. Whether there are or are not negative related consequences doesn't really affect the specific question of an individual being free to sell their own body if they choose, within reason.

And for what its worth I think Mikado's indoor/outdoor distinction is super important and I agree with him. I don't think streetwalking should be legal.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: July 12, 2015, 11:04:13 PM »

Did I ever claim otherwise? I explicitly said that I don't favor keeping prostitution a crime, I just think it's repugnant to act as if it's completely unremarkable, unexceptionable, and morally neutral. That's all I was ever trying to say.

I will however also say for what has to be at least the third time on this forum, possibly the third time in this thread, that I find the sensibility that one's moral viewpoints should have no place in one's attitudes towards policy, such that 'moralistic' can be uncomplicatedly an insult in this context, deeply, deeply disturbing. I don't like sex being commodified, it's important to me that sex not be commodified, and I don't want to live in an environment in which the commodification of sex is commonly accepted. Of course this is going to make me less than thrilled with the idea of legally condoning the commodification of sex, even if I recognize that it's for the best.

Truth be told I respect the sincerity by which you have this opinion, I suppose if I were utterly morally repulsed by a policy/activity I too would argue against it even in the face of the "technical" arguments of the proponents of said policy.

Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: July 13, 2015, 02:35:04 AM »

To look at the arguments of the pro-prostitution liberal left is to enter a strange and frankly kind of gross world in which treating sex as an in principle separate sphere of life from employment--surely a novel and incomprehensible distinction to make!--is just one of 'society's hang-ups', consent to sex and consent to employment should be held to directly equivalent standards, and 'sex-negative' is a non-joke concept.

Reality and rationality may seem strange and gross to those living in a moralistic world of delusion and nonsense, yes.

Again somebody has used 'moralistic' as an insult as if caring about right and wrong when making policy is in some way a bad thing. I think this says more than I could.

This. This, so much.

They keep retreating to attacks on feminism. I swear, half the time it seems like I'm debating with conservatives.

TNF's self identification as a "communist" means that he gets to identify as part of the 'far left' even though he's actually on the far right in this debate.

Feminism has always been a petty-bourgeois movement that is most interested in making sure that women have the same opportunity as men to enter that milieu. The fact that feminists have hitched themselves to the Democratic Party and reject even the mildest demands that would actually empower working class and poor women is evidence enough of that. The petty bourgeois feminist is not out demanding free abortion on demand, he or she is instead demanding only a defense of the existing regime on abortion rights, which works well enough for people who have money (who compromise, of course, the vast majority of members of organizations such as NARAL, NOW, etc., etc.).

Genuine Marxism rejects feminism in favor of women's liberation. We don't think that the only women that should have the right to live full fledged lives are those of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie. We demand that women have the right to free abortion on demand and access to things like socialized daycares, laundromats, etc, etc. And most of all, we don't subsume our politics to petty bourgeois moralizing. There are certainly pseudo-Marxists who embrace every bit of the anti-sex, petty bourgeois moralizing that has come out into the open again in the last few decades or so, sure. But they lack an elementary understanding of Marxist theory. One can be for the liberation of women while not subscribing to an ideology that is fundamentally anti-worker at its core (because of its denial of the class struggle and attempts to build a cross-class 'sisterhood' of women that has never and will never exist).

And no, I'm not taking the 'far-right' position on this. That would be male chauvinism. I'm not a male chauvinist, and I find it funny that you can't seem to distinguish between a position that calls for trusting women to make their own decisions about what they do for a living and support for women being chained to the kitchen. You have some real issues with discernment, be it on this issue or your inability to distinguish consensual sexual activity from rape, as was the case in the thread about the father who beat up his son's rapist.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: July 13, 2015, 02:45:04 AM »

Of course the sexist dominated left is circling the wagons in this thread to pat each other on the back, meanwhile studiously avoiding any actual debate or exchange of ideas, whilst at the same time making proposals that would make even the most typical male chauvinist, or jmfcst type, look like a feminist.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: July 13, 2015, 03:10:20 AM »

All the anti-sex work because are trying to argue that the pro-sex work people are "right-wing", rather than trying to argue that they're wrong. They can't argue they're wrong because they aren't wrong.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: July 13, 2015, 06:41:16 AM »

Beet I'm pretty sick of your drive-by accusations of sexism. You don't even bother trying to substantiate them.

Rather unbecoming of a moderator of a board called "Political Debate" that ostensibly has higher standards than the rest of the forum.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: July 13, 2015, 07:01:02 AM »

All the anti-sex work because are trying to argue that the pro-sex work people are "right-wing", rather than trying to argue that they're wrong. They can't argue they're wrong because they aren't wrong.

It's really pretty transparent, isn't it? Even if there's an issue on which, at least on a surface level, some people from the left and some people from the right arrive at the same position, though using different reasoning, it's disingenuous and petty to label that a "right-wing" position and tar your opponent with it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: July 13, 2015, 09:17:39 AM »

This thread really oscillates between rather interesting discussion and pure nonsense. Personally I find prostitution a pretty tricky issue. I find it difficult to argue on principle for not allowing it but it does strike me as a pretty bad thing in a bunch of ways. I tend to end up leaning in favour of something like the Swedish stance on it but I'm not sure. (Btw, I object to the term Scandinavian/Nordic model - the difference between say Sweden and Denmark on this is huge).
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: July 13, 2015, 09:50:09 AM »

Of course the sexist dominated left is circling the wagons in this thread to pat each other on the back, meanwhile studiously avoiding any actual debate or exchange of ideas, whilst at the same time making proposals that would make even the most typical male chauvinist, or jmfcst type, look like a feminist.

It's almost as if you're posting from a different thread.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: July 13, 2015, 10:21:24 AM »

The substantiation is, not even a social conservative like jmfcst would suggest something like state run brothels.

Compared to a thoughtless libertarian "legalize it", it's far more pro-prostitution, because a libertarian can at least stand on the principle that although he personally dislikes prostitution, that is not a justification for the state to ban it if other people want to engage in it. Siniliar arguments about negative liberties are used at the time in many contexts; for example defending the free speech of someone whose speech you find distasteful (let's say hate speech). That is a far cry from wanting the state to set up radio stations repeating that speech. How is this different? The state run brothel is far more radically pro prostitution than even the most extreme mainstream pro-legalization position.

It is sexist because a state provision of a good is pretty much the most explicit endorsement possible of the idea that people are entitled to such goods, is it not? If I say the state should provide food, shelter, defense, health care, a lawyer if you cannot afford one, and so on this typically means I think people are entitled to such things. The notion that the state should provide access to womens vaginas endorses the idea that people are entitled to them. It equates access to p___y with a resource, like education or health care. Social conservatives also think this way, but at least they would not make it so explicit-- the family patriarchy is almost humane in comparison. What happens if the state-employee prostitute turns away someone for being Chinese? Is this grounds for a civil rights violation lawsuit? The state should not be in the business of exploiting women's (as sex workers overwhelmingly are) economic vulnerability to play pimp. Even in a socialist society where prostitution were legal as a niche of capitalism, the state should provide all men and women with a living wage as a matter of guarantee, and stay out of the business of prostitition.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: July 13, 2015, 10:59:59 AM »

I have never said I support state-run brothels. Direct your ire at someone not me.

At this point I'm not even sure you read my posts anymore.

All I believe is that it should be legal and regulated, with the strictest of enforcement. I believe keeping it illegal not only denies men and women their agency and control over their own bodies, but is also completely ineffectual and turns a blind eye to dangers that society could be solving if we treated the issue with more maturity. I also don't buy into moderate hero half-steps like the Swedish model, which I think has a lot of pointless arbitrary distinctions that still stigmatize the work, and is insufficient when it comes to protecting the health and safety of all involved because of that. Decriminalization or "this is legal, but this is not, but this is legal if not done this but not that way or if done by this person but not that person" still leaves far too many people in the dark and encourages weird niche loophole industries that would be far better controlled through simple and straightforward legalization.

Nowhere in there do I think it should be state-run.

Even if it was I think your logic is baffling, anyway. There are state-run liquor stores. By your logic that implies an entitlement to liquor, or the most explicit endorsement possible of it. No one sane thinks this. Close the tumblr tab.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: July 13, 2015, 11:05:39 AM »

The substantiation is, not even a social conservative like jmfcst would suggest something like state run brothels.

Except I don't think anyone here advocated for state-run brothels. You're spinning a strawman.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 11 queries.