Sex work

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If that's actually sincere, then I commend you for being open-minded.