Sex work

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

I guess TNF pretty much did, in that he thinks almost everything should be controlled by the state, and by extension, brothels. But even so, I don't think anyone else agreed.

[Beet]

Haha, I very rarely read tumblr. But even so, I've seen enough to know that merely being on that platform should not be grounds for dismissal.

And given the massive uprising to get prohibition repealed, I'd say people in the U.S. do view alchohol as an entitlement. If a liquor store refused to serve blacks, that would be grounds for a lawsuit, no?

[Famous Mortimer]

Now he's trying to argue that prostitution is socially conservative. Just like with arguing prostitution is libertarian, it doesn't prove legalization is wrong. Worse than that though, it's just ridiculous. The arguments for legal prostitution actually do line up with libertarianism (just like the arguments for legal pot and alcohol, which are also mainstream on the left) but arguing that it's socially conservative for people to have sex outside of marriage? WTF.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And given the massive uprising to get prohibition repealed, I'd say people in the U.S. do view alchohol as an entitlement. If a liquor store refused to serve blacks, that would be grounds for a lawsuit, no?

It would be grounds for a lawsuit anywhere, what's your point?

You're bordering on "x being legal means x is being endorsed!" territory that crackpot conservatives trot out with respect to legalizing weed.

[Famous Mortimer]

Haha, I very rarely read tumblr. But even so, I've seen enough to know that merely being on that platform should not be grounds for dismissal.

And given the massive uprising to get prohibition repealed, I'd say people in the U.S. do view alchohol as an entitlement. If a liquor store refused to serve blacks, that would be grounds for a lawsuit, no?

What are you even talking about? It's a crime for ANY business to discriminate against customers based on race. If a private businesses was based around something totally frivolous like fake taxidermed animals and they refused to serve Black people, that would be a crime. Does that mean people are "entitled" to fake taxidermed animals? I guess you could phrase it that way but, so what?

Are you saying legalized prostitution would be less offensive if brothels could discriminate against people?

What is your point even?

[Beet]

You guys don't read my posts, and then you accuse me of not engaging or throwing out accusations without substantiation. My sole objection in this thread regarding how we think about prostitution is essentially the (thoughtless, in my view) assertion that it's just a job like any other. It's Monday and I'm too busy at the moment to get into repeating myself here, but I might reply later tonight.

[Famous Mortimer]

Dude, why were you talking about discrimination?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

The contrast with drugs/alcohol is still interesting so I don't blame you, but I disagree. I view the legalisation of things through a utilitarian lens, not through an attachment to Liberty above else. It seems to me that keeping the alcohol/soft drug industries as legitimate legal businesses (albeit on a tight leash) is a worthwhile risk that compounds the extremely negative effects of prohibition. I'm not convinced the sex industry offers the same benefits, and I think the data agrees with me.

One interesting note of comparison between argument and mine, that probably suggests we're duelling at cross purposes is I'm droning on about the industry as a whole and, by contrast, you refer to "an individual being free to sell their own body if they choose". It's intriguing, isn't it? For the record, I have no problem with self-employed pimps, for lack of a better word. It's the idea that we need to legalise the industry as a whole that begins to raise my alarm. (as I've said a couple times in this thread). For starters, of course brothels will look about as archaic as local blacksmiths pretty soon, so it may all be moot.

[Marokai Backbeat]

To Beet: I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just confused, and the reason I'm confused is because you've created this weird logic pretzel trying to justify the fact that you're clearly just uncomfortable with legalized prostitution for personal reasons. And that's fine, I don't like it either, but trying to concoct an argument that can really objectively define prostitution as "not just a job like any other" is impossible.

Okay, you know what? Let's go back and take a look at your posts that you're adamant about not wanting to repeat, because I'm sure I just missed that really good rational breakdown of how sex work is fundamentally different.

Yes, the question is- we generally recognize sexual coercion as being worse than nonsexual coercion. And anything done under economic pressure has a coercive element to it. The poorer you are, the worse it is. If you have a chemical addiction that you literally cannot control, or need to work in order so that your son or daughter has a place to sleep tomorrow night, then there is a coercive element, yes. So the question is- is that okay? Have we really thought through the implications of treating sex work as 'just another job'? Suppose a woman or man collecting unemployment insurance receives a job offer as a prostitute. Does s/he have to take it or be cut off as not seeking work? If you answer no to that question, is it not some sort of admission that selling sex is not exactly the same as flipping burgers?

It's more complicated than just 'a consenting adult just working a job', that's all we need to consider. It's certainly true that sex work is diverse; not all sex workers are impoverished and some of them really do have agency. As Torie said, that sort is typically already de facto legalized. And legalization of something is not the same as morally condoning it. I do not trust the police to deal with sex workers. I do not think johns are evil people who need to be locked up. I do not think either should feel dissuaded from reporting rape, abuse, or robbery because what they are doing is 'illegal' or shameful. Nor do I think any real harms are occurring from the act itself if it is really consensual. But to treat it as 'just another job'? No.

Let me just highlight the part where you really break it down for us.

But to treat it as 'just another job'? No.

Very compelling.

This argument is based on nothing but personal morality that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny but you're convinced really means something quantifiable. It doesn't. Your assertion that sex work isn't just like another job rests on nothing more than other people also thinking that it isn't. I can turn this right around on you (and CrabCake, for that matter) incredibly easily, and with virtually anything. "Same-sex marriage isn't just like any other marriage. Oh, try telling SOCIETY that!" This argument holds right up until the point that it doesn't. People just changing their minds is all it rests on. It holds no water. It's not an actual explanation of a real inherent difference.

The contrast with drugs/alcohol is still interesting so I don't blame you, but I disagree. I view the legalisation of things through a utilitarian lens, not through an attachment to Liberty above else. It seems to me that keeping the alcohol/soft drug industries as legitimate legal businesses (albeit on a tight leash) is a worthwhile risk that compounds the extremely negative effects of prohibition. I'm not convinced the sex industry offers the same benefits, and I think the data agrees with me.

What actual data, though? And what position does said data even support? You say you support cautious legalization, sympathetic to the Nordic model, right? My understanding is that that restrained, often arbitrary approach hasn't done much to reduce human trafficking or disease either. What is your position actually based on?

I think your self-proclaimed utilitarian approach to issues is excessive and potentially dangerous but I guess that's a broader argument for a different topic.

Edit: I will say though that your stated approach is awfully technocratic in contrast to your "It's not just like any other job" argument, which is so steeped in subjectivity.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the big problem with sex work is that it's all too often the only realistic option for someone to support themselves -- platitudes about "empowerment," "sexual agency," etc are dangerously naïve at best. the argument that sex work should be treated like any other job is also very very wrong. standard occurrences like firing someone for not doing their work gain some pretty horrifying implications when applied to sex work.

that's not to say, of course, that criminalising prostitution is at all a good idea; the only thing that accomplishes is pushing the industry underground and making exploitation even easier. really the best policy is having fully legal sex work, aggressive policing against exploitation, and a guaranteed minimum income.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Yeah, I think what evergreen said is what a lot of people are missing while talking past each other. The hand-wringers are acting like the pro-legalization side are in favor of changing nothing about society but making all sex work legal. That is not even close to true.

Personally, I'd advocate an approach that examined and understood the coercive factors that lead people to be pushed into sex work, and attacked those factors, while also making sex work legal in a generally regulated way. Saying that sex work is inherently exploitative and degrading to all women who engage in it is wrong in several ways (there are absolutely women who are empowered and fulfilled by sex work, though I concede that they are a small subset; also, there are men who engage in sex work who are absolutely ignored by the discussion in here). But it's exploitative for reasons. I'd rather attack those deeper inequities than use the American hangups about sex to put it all on prostitution and leave it at that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I can see the argument that sex work is coercive through the logic that all work is, to some extent, coercive. But the solution there is to remove the coercive pressure of work, not to prohibit sex work specifically.

[traininthedistance]

I can see the argument that sex work is coercive through the logic that all work is, to some extent, coercive. But the solution there is to remove the coercive pressure of work, not to prohibit sex work specifically.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that work that requires that one's sensitive orifices be penetrated is more "coercive" than work that... doesn't make such demands.  Mind you, there are things that qualify as "sex work" which don't involve that (massage parlors, cam shows, etc.); and at the end of the day it's a situation where legalization and regulation for health and workplace safety/dignity seems obviously the least bad solution.  But there are qualitative differences all the same, which indicate that regulation should be different (and stronger) than in some other industries.

(EDIT: God, I realize that the clinical tone I just took is super cringeworthy, but I'm not sure how better to phrase it and don't want to spend any more time mulling it over.  Oh well.)

[Beet]

Of course my opinions are subjective. This is political debate, not mathematical proof.

I think my point has been made pretty clearly. It seems more unjust to cut off unemployment benefits to someone for refusing a job as a prostitute, than for refusing almost any other job. It seems more unjust to require prostitutes to serve every client regardless of race or ethnicity than it does for other professionals. Prostitution seems qualitatively different from other professions, for sexual coercion seems more egregious than nonsexual coercion. It is for the same reason that rape seems more egregious than simple assault. Yes, this is subjective, but it is a subjective opinion that almost everyone shares, including probably yourself?

The fact that almost everyone shares this opinion matters of its own accord. The difference with gay marriage is that same sex couples actually wanted to get married, and it was the rest of society (straights) telling them they couldn't. But in this case, the actual sex workers and women and men potentially drawn into sex work feel the same way as everyone else. I do not care why they feel this way, all that matters is that they do. And I don't see society's views on sexual coercion becoming more tolerant any time soon, but even if it were to happen, these attitudes would have to lead the way first before our attitudes towards sex work vis-a-vis nonsexual work were to change.

Of course I agree with regard to improving the general status of labor being the broader issue, and as my comments suggest I am not opposed to legalization, although my preference would be for decriminalization. Really it matters more to me that you are thinking about this issue in a nuanced way than what final position you come up with.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It seems more unjust to require prostitutes to serve every client regardless of race or ethnicity than it does for other professionals.

...may I ask why you think that?

[Beet]

It seems more unjust to require prostitutes to serve every client regardless of race or ethnicity than it does for other professionals.

...may I ask why you think that?

Because I don't want a woman to have to face the choice between ing a guy she doesn't want to and losing her livelihood.

[Marokai Backbeat]

To a certain extent I guess the rest of our quibbles can be agree to disagree kind of stuff, and honestly as long as we're generally on the same page with legalization I won't fight over details, but the possibility of brothels or whatever who refuse to serve blacks just strikes me as a weird thing to allow. I get your rationale - an individual should have at least some control and discretion when it comes to their clients, that only seems fair - but that that is a potential outcome feels like something that... is not ideal and wouldn't go over well.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Or that race is singled out as the ultimate example of why someone should be able to deny service to a client, rather than stipulating that maybe sex workers should have general right of refusal for clients that make them feel potentially unsafe.

[WVdemocrat]

Wow, this thread is still going on?

Anyway, I agree with what Beet is saying. You have to acknowledge that sex work is different. Do the proponents of legalized prostitution think the government should force unemployment claimants into prostitution? Should prostitutes have the right of refusal of service?

The reason I pointed out that my opponents were taking the "libertarian position" was because libertarians support legalizing everything indiscriminately. Liberals support legalization generally, but support government intervention to promote social justice. If you want examples, look at affirmative action, or gun control.

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.

That's what I mean. Some conservative could accuse a liberal of being "self-righteous" on the issue of marriage equality, or abortion, or on gun control (I actually have had that thrown at me on gun control - A LOT). Additionally, you seem to believe the ideology of Democrats on social issues is just the libertarian position of "legalize it." It includes legalizing when it's smart to do so, but it also includes promoting social justice, which you conveniently forget. And because everybody keeps forgetting: I support decriminalization.

In sum, the proponents of legalizing prostitution seem to forget that promoting social justice is a major part of the Democratic Party's platform, so don't accuse us of being out of step.

Anyway, I intend for this to be my last post in this thread because it is such a heated and vicious debate, but if somebody wants to respond to this, I'll reply. Thanks for reading.

[Famous Mortimer]

Except I'm pretty sure all the left-wing people here DO support heavy regulation of the sex market. So you just admitted we aren't even taking "the libertarian position".

[PJ]

Life as a prostitute is no cup of tea either. Women who are prostitutes are beaten commonly and typically have STDs. These women are afraid to come forward and report incidents to the police, and I realize that, which is why I support decriminalization. This would remove that fear of coming forward and reporting these types of incidents.

Decriminalization does not solve all of these problems and I'm a bit tired of it being used as a moderate hero free pass. Just because sex workers don't have to fear arrest does not mean they're going to go to the police to report that they are in poor working conditions. If they are in an abusive position where they have no rights, they're going to fear retribution from the pimps that are abusing them, assuming that they even have enough personal freedom to go to the police in the first place. Additionally, I don't see how allowing sex workers to talk to law enforcement does anything about the fact that many workers are already infected with STDs, something that the (although it's not perfect) heavy regulation for health, safety, and labor rights that you oppose could achieve.

Some sex workers are doing their jobs out of their own "free will." Yeah sure, it can be demeaning, but many stay there because it pays well. The assumption that decriminalization will lead to sex workers leaving the industry en masse because they can contact authorities and get out of the situation is naïve.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That sex is different from any other work is itself a "patriarchal mindset".

What connection does that have to patriarchy?

[DavidB.]

Regulation in my country, The Netherlands, has gone terribly wrong because politicians thought that all problems would magically disappear by legalizing it - nope. The left (and the progressive right) has taken the position that legalizing prostitution is basically a woman's right, and the status-quo isn't going to change anytime soon.

I'd rather live in a world without "sex work". I think prostitution is inherently degrading. But prostitution is called the oldest profession on earth for a reason, and banning people from prostituting themselves is not going to magically make it go away, period. So we need to find a way to make the situation the least bad for sex workers, which means minimizing the "shame" and the problems that generally come along with the "industry", often related to pandering, violence, human trafficking, drug addiction et cetera. The Swedish model seems more attractive to me than the liberal Dutch model, but I don't think it provides a logically sound solution to the problem. So I'd prefer to legalize and regulate prostitution, to criminalize pandering, to outlaw any company that "employs" people in the prostitution industry (let them be self-employed instead, in order for them to be always in control of their lives), and to introduce stronger penalties on human trafficking (which is currently the biggest problem with regard to prostitution in the Netherlands - thanks, Schengen). Furthermore, I'd outlaw streetwalking (currently legal in many Dutch cities): women are not for rent.

I think I'm quite the moderate hero on this topic...

[WVdemocrat]

I'd just like to bump this thread to say: Famous Mortimer, you were right. I've changed my position. My position before was "paternalistic" and "moralistic grandstanding" as you so eloquently put it. Legalization, which could ensure higher standards of living for sex workers and devastate the human trafficking black market, is the way to go.

So yeah, I just wanted to add that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd just like to bump this thread to say: Famous Mortimer, you were right. I've changed my position. My position before was "paternalistic" and "moralistic grandstanding" as you so eloquently put it. Legalization, which could ensure higher standards of living for sex workers and devastate the human trafficking black market, is the way to go.

So yeah, I just wanted to add that.

wut?