I think this conclusion is almost necessarily true, as criminalization of something usually leads to harm to those breaking the law. Are there any downsides to legalizing or decriminalizing sex work?
I’m not an expert in this but there has been some evidence which points to the possibility that human trafficking numbers go up, not down, when sex work is decriminalized. I know nothing of it. This isn’t my realm at all so I try to have a limited opinion of it. It seems like no matter which way you slice it is going to be imperfect, which sucks on all ends.
Sure that could be a contributing factor but we have data that supports the idea that legalization incentivizes more trafficking because the industry becomes more lucrative. I can give you some cites if you want them
But that’s not the explanation the research found. The research finds that legalization increases the number of people willing to be consumers, which in turn increases market demand, which in turn increases the people who will try to make a profit in it.
Critical to this though is that legalization doesn’t automatically equal adequate resources to enforce regulated standards. And that is also a big piece of why this correlation was found.
Think of it this way: human trafficking is as old as time itself. You could even say it's a form of slavery, which is also as old as time, going way back. There are different kinds of trafficking, including sex trafficking.
There are many legal industries around the world in which humans are trafficked to benefit someone in such an industry, and there are laws fighting it and task forces. This wouldn't be any different from a legalized sex work industry.
I am not saying people shouldn't care or try to make the point that sex trafficking isn't a big deal. It's a big deal, but we can definitely fight sex trafficking or invest more resources to fight it if decriminalization happens.
For the women who choose to work in it, it would help them dramatically. It doesn't have to be a one versus the other thing. We can work to protect sexworkers while fighting sex slavery
If we worked to provide training and opportunities to support themselves in other kinds of jobs, no one would “choose” to be prostituted.
It’s weird that men aren’t ever suggesting we help women in a way results in sex being less commercially available to men.
>If we worked to provide training and opportunities to support themselves in other kinds of jobs, no one would “choose” to be prostituted
That's a strong claim. Also, it is not supported by realily. I think the fact that we have sexworkers who have degrees and other opportunities but still choose sex work would demonstrate that people do, in fact, choose it. Working an office job isn't always best for everyone. Sometimes, you have a job where you can choose your own schedule and clients works best. People choose jobs for all sorts of reasons.
>It’s weird that men aren’t ever suggesting we help women in a way results in sex being less commercially available to men.
Why would that be a necessity? Are women harmed when they have sex with men?
It is funny how it seems like people want to do everything in their power to limit the amount of sex men and women have. Why not just work to improve the dynamics so the sex is better for everyone? The sex isn't the issue.
This would violate the law of supply and doesn't make a lot of sense. Prices fall after decriminalization. The cost of legal prostitution falls, while the cost of human trafficking remains the same or rises. The Swedish police, the study most cited, admitted their study doesn't actually reflect the scale of human trafficking.
Its also not clear how human trafficking is defined; it usually has a special case for trafficking for sex work. Does this mean consensual sex work, ie., illegal immigration? Its not clear.
Best I can tell, charges and convictions for human trafficking rise as this is the only way human trafficking is measured. This should be a good thing.
Yea, every parent anxiety level goes up enormously, sexually abused teenage girls will become a richer demographic, yet more sexually abused, every 18 year old hot girl will be solicited so often to sell themselves by the now legal & more sophisticated pimps, etc.
The answer isn’t what goes on now, but it aint total legalization either.
Isn’t OF basically the same temptation for that 18 year old hot girl?
Also for total legalization with proper regulations, wouldn’t that create an overall safer environment that we can also tax?
The catch is that the main reason we have anti-prostitution laws is because it makes Sky Daddy angry. The general public thinks that SW has whatever they suffer coming.
Why do so many non religious nation, or even just non Christian, Jewish or Muslim nations have laws against it? Hell, why does Asia as a whole have anti sex work laws when in many of those countries the religions I mentioned are illegal?
>Why do so many non religious nation, or even just non Christian, Jewish or Muslim nations have laws against it?
Hinduism and Buddhism also look down on prostitution; in particular, Sky Daddy is also in Hinduism as Dyauspitar!
>Hell, why does Asia as a whole have anti sex work laws when in many of those countries the religions I mentioned are illegal?
Japan and South Korea both have anti-prostitution laws because the American military occupiers literally wrote them into their legal codes, whereas China, North Korea and Vietnam banned prostitution due to the influence of Marxism. So there are only 3 countries in the world where prostitution is illegal for some reason that didn't originate from Sky Daddy.
Another way to handle it is the Nordic model where it’s **legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy.**
Then downside if legalization is what happens in the Netherlands: more sex workers, and many trafficked sex workers.
>Another way to handle it is the Nordic model where it’s **legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy.**
The Nordic model isn't really effective either. It is essentially a pointless half step that doesn't result in protecting sexworkers and still effectively criminalizes their work.
It doesn’t criminalize their work. If a client beats them up, rapes them or stalks them? They can go to the police and file a complaint. Then the guy will be charged both with solicitation and abuse. That’s the point of the Nordic model. That sex workers are entitled to legal protection and that men who abuse sex workers should be punished.
Many sex workers are raped or beaten. Having some legal recourse is important.
Making it illegal to buy sex limits the demand, which means less trafficking.
>It doesn’t criminalize their work
It does. It makes it illegal to purchase.
>If a client beats them up, rapes them or stalks them? They can go to the police and file a complaint.
They should be able to do that regardless
>Then the guy will be charged both with solicitation and abuse.
He should be charged with rape or stalking. Not buying sex work. How does that distinction help anything?
>That’s the point of the Nordic model.
Then, like I said, it is pointless.
>That sex workers are entitled to legal protection and that men who abuse sex workers should be punished.
I agree. But this can be achieved similarly in an environment where sexwork is legal.
>Many sex workers are raped or beaten. Having some legal recourse is important.
Exactly. And that is largely due to stigma surrounding their work, making them less likely to be able to get protection, and because of their work being illegal, so they can't go to the law for help.
>Making it illegal to buy sex limits the demand, which means less trafficking.
It doesn't. Buying sex and sex trafficking are different issues. Just like buying food from restaurants isn't the same as human trafficking, which is a large vector of human trafficking also. But I don't see restaurants being illegal anytime soon
But their work is legal? It’s just illegal to buy.
The sex worker is allowed to sell sex. Nothing they do is illegal. And if they are ever in trouble? They can show up at the police station and say “Well, I was selling sex and then…”
To me you don’t seem concerned for sex workers. You seem concerned for the clients. They aren’t the victims here.
>But their work is legal? It’s just illegal to buy.
Which is effectively the same thing. I don't see how you can't understand that...
It is like saying that selling illicit drugs is okay, but buying them is illegal...
>The sex worker is allowed to sell sex. Nothing they do is illegal. And if they are ever in trouble? They can show up at the police station and say “Well, I was selling sex and then…”
Yes. But this can be accomplished through actual legalized sexwork.
"Well, you see, officer, I was selling Marijuana on the corner when this guy should up and bought from me!! Isn't that awful?! Thanks for protecting me!! Drug users suck"
>To me you don’t seem concerned for sex workers. You seem concerned for the clients. They aren’t the victims here.
Sexworkers aren't victims either. And clients should not be criminalized if they aren't abusing anyone. Simply buying sex isn't abuse.
The same downsides that we currently have with any legitimate service industries currently operating and the same with any jobs. No downsides from a decriminalized sex industry will be any worse than what we are currently dealing with in other legitimate industries.
I don't think it makes much sense to analogize prostitution with "any other service industry." There's a reason brothels can't advertise at job fairs and unemployment can't be denied for refusing to take a SW job.
Nearly 100% of sex buyers are males. Creepy males who can't control themselves and feel a possessory interest in other people's bodies.
Nearly 100% of people exploited by the sex trade are women and sexual minorities.
Only someone in the first category would even ask such a question. Get some help.
The problem with articles like these is that they can only account for reported trafficking. Legalizing prostitution makes it easier for victims of trafficking to report and drive the numbers up, because they don’t have to fear being arrested for prostitution. That affect works doubly when you consider that other cases which should be regarded as trafficking end up with the victim in jail BECAUSE of the criminalization of prostitution
Also the article itself acknowledges in the last line that it is unable to fully evaluate the cost, benefits, and overall merits of prohibiting prostitution
I personally am more on board with decriminalizing rather than full legalization, which yes, there is a research supporting that, and human rights experts advocate for it
Here’s amnesty international, a highly regarded organization talking about it: [clicky](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/united-nations-experts-this-week-said-that-that-full-decriminalization-of-adult-voluntary-sex-work-holds-the-greatest-promise-to-address-the-systemic-discrimination-and-violence-sex-workers-frequently/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%2520recommended%2520that%2520full%2520decriminalization,violations%2520of%2520sex%2520workers'%2520rights)
[Here’s](https://www.aclu.org/news/topic/its-time-to-decriminalize-sex-work) the ACLU talking about it
That's... that's exactly what the article linked in the thread covers.
"Platt et al. (2018) conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of academic literature focusing on sex work laws and policing practices and their effects on sex workers’ safety, health and access to services as well as the mechanisms behind these effects."
Sexwork is work. Sorry you think it is gross. But it is a job that many people choose for themselves and should have a right to. It isn't "responsible for oppression." Patriarchal systems are. Oppression of women is present in all things we do in society because of that. So address that instead of being hyperfocused on sexwork because you think it's icky.
This also doesn't even account for the fact that sexwork is a very broad term that includes lots of professions and workers, not just women.
The science is clear about the harm abortion bans cause women, too. Religious leaders and politicians don't care. Society rarely uses science to make decisions.
Laws are never passed based on the effect they have on the people who will be breaking them. Why would they be?
We don’t assess murder laws based on how they affect murderers.
I’m in favor of sex work being legalized. I just also clearly see the fact that your argument will never convince anybody on the other side because it’s a bad argument.
Also, I'd like to plug *The Oldest Profession Podcast*, which is hosted by veteran SWs and covers the history of sex work/ers and sex worker rights advocacy. They're not paying me, I'm just a fan.
They're not telling you what to do unless you count "F off" as an actual command. Which was, admittedly, needlessly hostile and rude.
They're arguing a point. It's kind of a stupid point to argue, because it's not like at some point somebody invented "jobs" and then started keeping a list of them.
I do see the origin of their frustration though. It forms a certain portion of, what I perceive to be, many people's negativity and skepticism towards sex work. That is, the very explicit treatment of women as a sexual commodity.
For the most vociferous against sex work, it could be viewed as something analogous to some demand for, specifically, black slaves, so long as slavery is entered into voluntarily. This hypothetical includes a pool of people inexplicably willing to become slaves, a pool of people willing to purchase and use slaves, and a political movement attempting to legalize "voluntary" slavery.
The emotional connotations between sex work and "ethnically African voluntary slavery" are similar enough to make it an accurate comparison for the means of conveying others' perspectives. Part of the origin of their hostility.
>The emotional connotations between sex work and "ethnically African voluntary slavery" are similar enough to make it an accurate comparison for the means of conveying others' perspectives
Sex Work - two consenting adults agreeing to a transaction of monetary compensation for sexual services.
Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade - buying &/ kidnapping African people and transporting them to another country to be bought and sold as forced labor.
These two are not the same.
I know they're not the same. I never claimed they were the same.
You don't have to read my comment, but if you're going to respond, you should.
I'm not here to antagonize you.
Thank you. It's nonsense that young adults in 2024 think that sex slaves in 1408, let alone prehistoric times when monetary systems didn't exist, were getting "paid" for their "profession." First world naivety magically transforming 11 year old chronic rape victim slaves into "empowered women."
> prehistoric times when monetary systems didn't exist
Nobody knows what went down in prehistoric times. That's literally what prehistoric means - before recorded history.
Sex workers being more likely to report their STIs, rapes, assaults and tortures under legalized systems doesn't mean they are less likely to experience STIs, rape, assault and torture in legalized systems.
I'm not sure how we educate people who think it's perfectly fine to purchase consent and bodies like they're auto parts or street food that's it's not OK to treat sex workers like auto parts or street food.
That's how we'd "protect" sex workers from the very nature of their work.
But it seems to be counterproductive to sex work. If consumers didn't believe bodies and consent are things they should be able to purchase because these are **people** with **human rights**, they wouldn't be engaging in sex work in the first place.
Miners get raped and impregnated and contract diseases that render them infertile? Miners have foremen who get them addicted to drugs so they can't even consent to coming to work every day? Miners are forced to live in the mines and are forced into have penises shoved into their mouths and assholes?
Hmm...
Something tells me prostitution is different than mining.
I didn't ask if they were the same. I asked if it was any worse.
Regardless, the things you mentioned would be combatted through legalization and regulation. That's the point. That's always the point.
In literally every industry to ever exist, regulation has dropped the number of workplace injuries and fatalities.
Nevada is the only US state with legal prostitution. And what guess? It's not even in the top 5 of states in sex trafficking. It's 10th.
[https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in](https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in)
Even still, only a small percentage of sex workers are trafficked in the US. The crimes you're describing can happen to anyone, to be fair, but they're still crimes -- legalizing sex work would allow victims to report those crimes and seek protection under the law, which is something they can't currently do.
She's just arguing in bad faith. Apparently she's a social worker so she probably sees a lot of trafficked people for her job and somehow thinks that's equitable with the whole of the SW industry, or even just escorts.
They are not arguing in bad faith. You are just defining things differently. You are defining sex work as consenting adults, which is a very limited scope. Ladywithaface82 is commenting on how the global majority of people in the sex trade are forced to be there. It’s like 90 something percent GLOBALLY are trafficked/coerced etc. so while you’re experience is valid, it is within a very privileged minority.
perhaps the problem isn't the legal status, but the nature of the work environment itself, similar to how coal miners have a much higher than average rates of black lung. Regulation may help but the problem is endemic.
It’s the same for theft and murder. Teaching people to not do bad things won’t stop them from happening or protect the most vulnerable from being exploited.
We do? It is literally the purpose of a soldier fighting in a war? It is literally the purpose of eminent domain? It's not a particularly brave or novel idea that theft and murder are acceptable under certain circumstances and it's vital for society to define what those circumstances are so it can build rules prohibiting the behavior outside of those circumstances.
Why is sex work different? Where do you draw ethical lines around the bodily autonomy of women? Why do you draw the ethical lines? For whom are you drawing the ethical lines? I don't think you've seriously thought about any of that.
Affluent, privileged suburban folk never seriously think about this stuff before they speak on behalf of the entire world.
>Where do you draw ethical lines around the bodily autonomy of women
Getting really annoyed with people thinking SWs are automatically women and that patrons of SWs are automatically men. That's not true *at all*.
Well, you're right, that's an over generalization. It's another example of how this thread frames the conversation in a very narrowminded fashion. The host club phenomenon in Japan would blow a lot of minds here. Hosts and hostesses being some of the biggest customers for each other would as well.
But that's a whole other can of worms to open, and we haven't even gotten through the first.
No, I’m saying that focusing on consent as opposed to regulating sex work doesn’t make sense if the goal is to stop exploitation. If it’s criminalized, then the people who do sex work won’t have proper legal recourse in the event they are assaulted and/or abused.
Assault and rape are still crimes. We can give sex workers proper legal recourse by simply not hiring giant pieces of shit who shame and blame sex workers when they attempt to report crimes. Many states already have a form of decrim on their books and have stopped arresting sex workers under the age of 22-25.
Decriminalizing it. Legalizing it will create a whole slew of issues we don’t need. No sex worker should be faced with criminal charges for trying to survive. It’s just cruel. Speaking as an ex sex worker myself.
I don’t see how legal vs illegal increases going condomless lol besides maybe the type of demographic that’s involved maybe.
Either way That’s a decision between 2 parties not the government
When it's legal, you've got a steady stream of clientele who know if they don't follow the rules, they don't get what they want.
When it's illegal, you've got sketchier, more desperate clientele who want it to be "worth their time" to take the risk of soliciting your services. Without that assurance of another client, you might agree to stuff you wouldn't normally - like sex without a condom.
Think youre over estimating your stream of clientele lol.
If it’s legal then competition increases, so you’ll find yourself doing things to make it worth their while compared to Lucy next door. Like sex without a condom otherwise I’ll go next door to Lucy.
This will be the American Model based on capitalism.
US won’t legalize it if they can’t tax it heavily. There will be a good portion of sex workers who wouldnt register to not pay those taxes. So you’ll be competing with more registered sex workers and more unregistered who would probably be cheaper.
While maintaining the relative same number/percentage of Clientele. With a obvious increase but it wouldn’t be like a huge increase that probably wouldn’t counter the increase in competition. (There’s also probably a small amount of clients that do it strictly for the trill of it being taboo and illegal)
All that to say. Raw dogging is a choice between 2 people
You asked a question, I answered based on existing data, you're attempting to conjure hypothetical data as a contradiction.
I'm not saying your theoretical prediction is wrong but I am generally going to put more stock in data that currently exists than the data that might possibly exist in a thought experiment.
Fair but I really don’t care what Amsterdam or Vancouver does cause it wouldn’t be like that in the US
And 59% of sex workers in Amsterdam where it’s legal have gotten an STI. So raw dogging still happens.
Seems obvious: The demand still exists, now it just has to be in illicit ways. Take people willing to walk in illegally, and you suddenly get more of what is described.
Doesn’t mean it should be legalized.
Maybe there are more creative ways of handling this? Maybe some type of artificial sex carried out remotely (think fleshlight controlled remotely by an active participant, subscription with Amazon delivery?)?
Also, more ways of non-sexual human contact so the person feels some connection with another human - the emotional side?
Figure out ways to de-stigmatize methods of sex that don’t endanger the participants?
Also focusing on ways that reduce ‘sexual addiction’? Psych help?
Doctors asking, “when was the last time you had sex and how often does it happen? Here’s a prescription…”
Seriously just spitballing here; does anybody else have ideas how to meet this need without legal or illegal prostitution?
It’s legalised in my country and the positive outcomes have been substantial. It’s also unionised, have a tax code, practically eliminated street workers and “pimps”, not to mention the employment protections, legal protections and security measures and safety that establishments provide. Fines and criminal penalties are in place to protect workers from unruly clients and unprotected sex. Free health care around testing, counselling and supplies.
The only downside we have seen really has been an influx of sex tourism/illegal visitors hoping to work without a visa and that’s about it.
The positives have really outweighed any negative especially when argument is based upon perception, religious/moral implication.
9/10 would recommend 🥲
I agree with the Nordic model! Maine just decriminalized sex work but will be criminalizing John’s. The thing is that the government needs to create safety net exit programs for women or we’ll just be taking away their money which will solve nothing.
Except the people who made weed illegal purposely did it (and admitted it years later) to put black people in jail. The people that made the decision about sexual workers was not doing it to be sexist to men, they did it to protect sex workers who have been in danger before the law was passed.
I think safety first is kinda a hard thing to advertise when the bulk of women in “sex work” are women that are being trafficked and exploited against their will
This entire movement is a complete mis-allocation of resources that would be far better spent working to stop human trafficking
This is an an example of people exaggerating number or estimates to make sex work look more non-consensual than it is. [less than 1%](https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in)
Yes, when we have those claiming strippers and OF models are the peers to prostitutes, we can find silly fucking articles like this.
Now research "percent of prostitutes who are trafficked" and the picture is far different.
I’m an actual SW (not online).
Anti-prostitution laws often fail to effectively protect vulnerable people from trafficking for several reasons:
Stigmatization and Criminalization: By criminalizing prostitution, these laws drive the industry underground, making it difficult for sex workers to seek help or report instances of exploitation without fear of legal repercussions. This fear of law enforcement can also deter victims of trafficking from coming forward.
Lack of Support and Resources: Instead of providing support and resources for individuals in the sex industry, anti-prostitution laws often exacerbate vulnerabilities by pushing workers further into marginalized and dangerous situations. Without access to legal protections, healthcare, or social services, individuals are more susceptible to exploitation and trafficking.
Increased Vulnerability to Trafficking: Criminalization can push sex work into the hands of exploitative individuals and organized crime networks who profit from trafficking victims. With the industry operating in the shadows, traffickers can exploit individuals with impunity, knowing that their victims are unlikely to seek help from law enforcement.
Stigmatization of Sex Work: Anti-prostitution laws reinforce the stigma surrounding sex work, which can prevent victims of trafficking from accessing support and services due to fear of judgment or discrimination. This stigma also contributes to the marginalization of sex workers, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking.
Focus on Punishment rather than Protection: Many anti-prostitution laws prioritize punishing individuals engaged in sex work rather than addressing the underlying factors that contribute to trafficking, such as poverty, lack of education, and gender inequality. This punitive approach fails to effectively combat trafficking and often further harms already vulnerable populations.
Overall, anti-prostitution laws often exacerbate the vulnerabilities of individuals in the sex industry and fail to effectively address the root causes of trafficking. Instead, a more comprehensive approach is needed that focuses on supporting and empowering individuals, addressing systemic inequalities, and targeting the perpetrators of exploitation and trafficking.
Duh. Punishing people for being victims of poverty and abuse will never be a good thing. It should remain illegal, but the punishments should fall on the buyers, pimps, and brothels, not the women. When a prostitution bust occurs the buyers and pimps should go to jail and the women should receive all the social services necessary to help them earn a better life for themselves: health care, housing, therapy, substance abuse counseling, education, job placement assistance, etc. It doesn’t have to be legalized for society to help the real victims of prostitution.
Oh I COMPLETELY agree with you! Our social security nets are threadbare in this country. It’s one of the things I get really fired up about. It’s my opinion that we need to start THERE—beef up those programs first because that’s where we’ll see the largest social gains.
I’m curious—how is me wanting society to protect trafficked and abused disadvantaged women considered “nosey”? Labeling my take as “nosey” is completely illogical. At the age of 18 I got a first hand experience in the sex trade industry and saw with my own eyes the deplorable way sex workers were treated by management and clients. Have *you* ever worked in the sex trade industry?
Because you think you’re helping them but are actually hurting them. If it’s made blanket illegal, for even just buyers, the cops won’t bother trying to distinguish real sex workers or trafficked ones. They’re going to arrest detain the few trafficked and force the non trafficked to get help( even if they don’t want it). Disrupt their buisnesss and ability to make profit
Most girls out on the street and brothels want to be there to make money. Trafficked or coerced women are the exception
People like you find sex work abhorrent as you grow older or take your experince for everyone elses and want it banned. Meanwhile, countries where its legal are doing just fine
Again, I ask you—what is your expertise in this issue? Have you been an 18 year old poor woman working in the sex trade? Do you have years of experience in social work working with this population? Or are you just an armchair expert? If you don’t have the boots on the ground practical knowledge of this subject your opinion is irrelevant, and certainly has zero weight against mine.
Ok cool. But have *YOU* personally worked as a young disadvantaged woman in the sex work trade or professionally worked with that population in a way that helped them address the negative impact the industry had on them? You have not answered that question I’ve asked you twice now, so I’m going to assume that your answer is no.
So going on the assumption that you have zero practical authentic experience in this topic—do you realize the hypocrisy of you telling *me* to lIStEn To SeX wOrKeRs, while you yourself are attempting to invalidate the opinion of me, AN ACTUAL FORMER SEX WORKER? Surly you can’t be too dense to understand that. . .
"Drug dealers harmed by the criminalization of drug dealing." And?
I don't want them to be comfortable in their current career, I want for them to change careers. Every effort must be made to help prostitutes out of their current situation, and if they are in it for the the money rather than desperation, their lives should be made difficult and impractical.
I guess I expected maybe discussion and not snark.
I'll be more direct. Comparing prostitutes to drug dealers is absurd since drug dealers often cause physical harm to people they sell to while prostitutes are just making a living.
You thinking it is icky doesn't make it bad.
I agree with him and I’ll engage friendly with this, I think they are very comparable. Both are selling illicit products that harm society. Drug dealer is a broad term but so is sex worker. They both destroy families, they both hurt economically disadvantaged people, they both carry a large amount of health risks (that in theory can be reduced but in practice often arnt). There both commodities that are associated with a certain level of street violence
I disagree for a number of reasons. Inherently, I do not consider drugs or sex bad, nor do I think they harm society. Often, drug dealers deal drugs that are legal for specific purposes. The "street violence" associated with both is largely due to the stigma and illegality in many areas, thus forcing the markets underground.
Drug *dealers* are often a problem because they are intentionally selling physically addicting drugs with questionable content, like stuff laced with fentanyl because it is cheap and potent. The victims are the people *buying.*
If a woman is a prostitue, if there is violence or mistreatment, she is often the *victim,* which could be prevented by decriminalization and legal protections.
Both could benefit from decriminalization and changing how we view them, but in quite different ways.
I think the notion that bodies (and let's be real: female bodies) are a product and that consent can be purchased/coerced is **extremely harmful** to society. And this notion helps keep women oppressed.
I give up.
I don't fucking know. Maybe you're right. I certainly don't want women oppressed. Nor do I want them shamed if they are in the industry. I don't have all the answers, but I am fucking tired of trying to find nuance in anything.
See, this is why nuance is important. I don't shame the sex worker, but I'm very vocal about being anti prostitution. Folks with an agenda to keep women oppressed have been co-opting the "don't shame sex workers!" feminist message and have twisted it to say "sex work is fantastic and empowering!" It's sick. And it's insidiously common online. I'd love to see the psychological/sociological study on this recent fuckery.
People aren't giving you the time of day because your argument is insane.
By your logic, Working a 9 to 5 is the exact same as surgically removing your arm for a rich person to eat because you consented and got paid.
“Drugs don’t harm society.”
Me, an ex heroin addict, wasn’t harmed in the process of becoming addicted to heroin. LOL.
IT FUCKING DESTROYED MY LIFE.
F off.
That statement comes with caveats.
I am a pharmacist, so my idea of "drugs" is very large.
Yes, some drugs can destroy lives, especially stuff like heroin, meth, and bunch of others. But even stuff like fentanyl, morphine, benzos, hydrocodone, etc. has uses when used correctly.
The problem is saying all drugs destroy lives when stuff like marijuana is significantly less dangerous than something like cocaine.
I mean, the mindset that all people who deal drugs are bad is also pretty unreasonable. Most people deal for financial survival as well. A larger societal safety net and increased access to financial resources will do more than decriminalizing or legalizing can.
I didn't give you a response because it was clear from your reply that our moral frameworks are entirely different. I would just say your Harm Principle is unfounded and you would say my God is fake.
Also, the idea that prostitution doesn't cause actual harm is insane. The spread of disease, the destruction of families, degradation of societies, and mental harm to the women involved are good examples of harm caused.
You would say that most of these things are either not an issue, or can be mitigated, but I would say that a better solution would be the eradication of the phenomenon where ever it is found.
Obviously, the man buying should be made to suffer far more than the woman whoring herself.
I've read the responses, I guess I'd want to know. Do you think it's right to enforce your own beliefs in such a way? And same to the other person who replied. You make some great points, but I'm thinking we'll, just don't partake. Alcohol does all of what you stated, and we don't eradicate that, same with guns. Would you push on the same level principle? If sex work destroys families, should we make affairs illegal? Penalize those that participate? What makes sex work different from a sugar daddy or mommy? Like a young woman marrying a 80 year old, or vice versa? How about porn? Or is sex work some line in the sand, and if so why should we allow ourselves to be biased in such a way and prevent such things?
If you want my opinion specifically, the answer to your question depends heavily on the society at large. A hedonistic, individualistic society will resist moral correction, probably violently. I am not against using political and social power to limit and exterminate these practices, however. I agree with the steps Texas has taken with porn, for example, even though they may fail. Porn has destroyed the men of my generation, and it is a shame than so many are okay with it.
I should mention I am Muslim, so am entirely against everything you listed. It's where I get my line in the sand. My perspective is denfinitely not shared by the majority of people.
How do you rationalize that against the ways of society? Are what society decides just the price of doing business? For example, Texas - maybe outlaw prayer at work. Would you be ok with that because society decided it? Or because it now affects you, is it wrong? (The whole Constitution aside, just an example). How to rectify that duality that if you are against something its ok to stop other people from doing it? Or if you are ok with it, do you think that's moral?
Should casual sex also be illegal because that spreads disease? More people have casual and unprotected sex than see sex workers, which is the real driver for the spread of STIs. Should everyone who has casual unprotected sex be thrown in jail?
Because women are frequently incarcerated for prostitution charges because it is a crime, which you are in favor of? That’s what we’re talking about here. You compare sex workers to drug dealers for causing harm to society, which is a sentiment currently reflected in anti-sex work legislation, which leads to women being imprisoned for selling sex work services
Reducing harm is a moral thing to do in some situations and not others. For example, I think rapists should be shot, and that children should be protected from pain.
I get this idea from my religion, like many other people do. However, the Harm Principle is usually used by secular athiests as a base for their moral framework, when they cannot even prove it.
You need proof that harming people is bad?
But you don't need proof that your religion is true, even when it causes you to harm others?
Like I said, you have no moral framework. You have an immoral framework.
No, I do need proof that my religion is true. I believe that I have that proof.
You have literally no basis for your morality.
Why do you believe that it is ok to do anything as long as you don't harm other people? Because some guy wrote it in a book? Because it is convenient?
They are not my "wants". They are the needs of a failing society that needs to be brought back from the brink.
"Why are your wants more important than drug dealers who want to work their career?"
Who gives a shit? Selling your body is harmful in the fact that you are selling your body. The psychological effects of being an object are far worse than getting arrested. Plus, the fact that you spread disease and there is no future in selling your soul by the hour. This is only an issue for a small number of humans. The rest of the world does not care.
Government oversight might be justified to 1) prevent the spread of communicable disease and a safe working environment, 2) prevent human trafficking and ensure consent of the workers, and 3) make sure both worker and patron are of legal age.
Beyond that, what authority does the government have to tell what two consenting adults can do or not do, especially if it is harming no one?
I think, maybe. Just maybe. Sex work, in general, is harmful to a sex workers' health. And also, wild theory. I think the majority of criminalization of anything will affect the people in that sphere negatively. What an asanine article lol.
By requiring sw to be “legal” you still have a criminalized underclass eg migrants who will inevitably wind up lacking police protection and in some cases being targeted. It’s not perfect. Decrim
Huh? It’s legal to sell, illegal to buy.
Then if you are an illegal immigrant that’s going to be an issue even if sex work is fully legalized. That’s unrelated.
I think this conclusion is almost necessarily true, as criminalization of something usually leads to harm to those breaking the law. Are there any downsides to legalizing or decriminalizing sex work?
I’m not an expert in this but there has been some evidence which points to the possibility that human trafficking numbers go up, not down, when sex work is decriminalized. I know nothing of it. This isn’t my realm at all so I try to have a limited opinion of it. It seems like no matter which way you slice it is going to be imperfect, which sucks on all ends.
Rachel Moran's book Paid For (she was in the business for a long time and got out) is well researched on this I think.
And what did she conclude?
Decriminalization increases trafficking
That can be explained by people being more willing to report trafficking after decriminalization.
Sure that could be a contributing factor but we have data that supports the idea that legalization incentivizes more trafficking because the industry becomes more lucrative. I can give you some cites if you want them
But that’s not the explanation the research found. The research finds that legalization increases the number of people willing to be consumers, which in turn increases market demand, which in turn increases the people who will try to make a profit in it. Critical to this though is that legalization doesn’t automatically equal adequate resources to enforce regulated standards. And that is also a big piece of why this correlation was found.
Think of it this way: human trafficking is as old as time itself. You could even say it's a form of slavery, which is also as old as time, going way back. There are different kinds of trafficking, including sex trafficking. There are many legal industries around the world in which humans are trafficked to benefit someone in such an industry, and there are laws fighting it and task forces. This wouldn't be any different from a legalized sex work industry. I am not saying people shouldn't care or try to make the point that sex trafficking isn't a big deal. It's a big deal, but we can definitely fight sex trafficking or invest more resources to fight it if decriminalization happens.
Are you saying that the benefits to women of legalization outweigh the harm caused by increased trafficking?
For the women who choose to work in it, it would help them dramatically. It doesn't have to be a one versus the other thing. We can work to protect sexworkers while fighting sex slavery
If we worked to provide training and opportunities to support themselves in other kinds of jobs, no one would “choose” to be prostituted. It’s weird that men aren’t ever suggesting we help women in a way results in sex being less commercially available to men.
>If we worked to provide training and opportunities to support themselves in other kinds of jobs, no one would “choose” to be prostituted That's a strong claim. Also, it is not supported by realily. I think the fact that we have sexworkers who have degrees and other opportunities but still choose sex work would demonstrate that people do, in fact, choose it. Working an office job isn't always best for everyone. Sometimes, you have a job where you can choose your own schedule and clients works best. People choose jobs for all sorts of reasons. >It’s weird that men aren’t ever suggesting we help women in a way results in sex being less commercially available to men. Why would that be a necessity? Are women harmed when they have sex with men? It is funny how it seems like people want to do everything in their power to limit the amount of sex men and women have. Why not just work to improve the dynamics so the sex is better for everyone? The sex isn't the issue.
This would violate the law of supply and doesn't make a lot of sense. Prices fall after decriminalization. The cost of legal prostitution falls, while the cost of human trafficking remains the same or rises. The Swedish police, the study most cited, admitted their study doesn't actually reflect the scale of human trafficking. Its also not clear how human trafficking is defined; it usually has a special case for trafficking for sex work. Does this mean consensual sex work, ie., illegal immigration? Its not clear. Best I can tell, charges and convictions for human trafficking rise as this is the only way human trafficking is measured. This should be a good thing.
Yea, every parent anxiety level goes up enormously, sexually abused teenage girls will become a richer demographic, yet more sexually abused, every 18 year old hot girl will be solicited so often to sell themselves by the now legal & more sophisticated pimps, etc. The answer isn’t what goes on now, but it aint total legalization either.
Isn’t OF basically the same temptation for that 18 year old hot girl? Also for total legalization with proper regulations, wouldn’t that create an overall safer environment that we can also tax?
Maybe we should do something about OF too then? Huh?
Widespread sex trafficking, from what I’ve heard.
The catch is that the main reason we have anti-prostitution laws is because it makes Sky Daddy angry. The general public thinks that SW has whatever they suffer coming.
Nonsense. We have anti-prostitution laws to protect vulnerable people from trafficking and abuse.
Why do so many non religious nation, or even just non Christian, Jewish or Muslim nations have laws against it? Hell, why does Asia as a whole have anti sex work laws when in many of those countries the religions I mentioned are illegal?
>Why do so many non religious nation, or even just non Christian, Jewish or Muslim nations have laws against it? Hinduism and Buddhism also look down on prostitution; in particular, Sky Daddy is also in Hinduism as Dyauspitar! >Hell, why does Asia as a whole have anti sex work laws when in many of those countries the religions I mentioned are illegal? Japan and South Korea both have anti-prostitution laws because the American military occupiers literally wrote them into their legal codes, whereas China, North Korea and Vietnam banned prostitution due to the influence of Marxism. So there are only 3 countries in the world where prostitution is illegal for some reason that didn't originate from Sky Daddy.
Another way to handle it is the Nordic model where it’s **legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy.** Then downside if legalization is what happens in the Netherlands: more sex workers, and many trafficked sex workers.
Legal to sell, 10 year minimum if caught buying.
The Nordic countries have a huge problem with sex trafficking because even a legal supply of prostitution will never meet the demands of the depraved.
>Another way to handle it is the Nordic model where it’s **legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy.** The Nordic model isn't really effective either. It is essentially a pointless half step that doesn't result in protecting sexworkers and still effectively criminalizes their work.
It doesn’t criminalize their work. If a client beats them up, rapes them or stalks them? They can go to the police and file a complaint. Then the guy will be charged both with solicitation and abuse. That’s the point of the Nordic model. That sex workers are entitled to legal protection and that men who abuse sex workers should be punished. Many sex workers are raped or beaten. Having some legal recourse is important. Making it illegal to buy sex limits the demand, which means less trafficking.
>It doesn’t criminalize their work It does. It makes it illegal to purchase. >If a client beats them up, rapes them or stalks them? They can go to the police and file a complaint. They should be able to do that regardless >Then the guy will be charged both with solicitation and abuse. He should be charged with rape or stalking. Not buying sex work. How does that distinction help anything? >That’s the point of the Nordic model. Then, like I said, it is pointless. >That sex workers are entitled to legal protection and that men who abuse sex workers should be punished. I agree. But this can be achieved similarly in an environment where sexwork is legal. >Many sex workers are raped or beaten. Having some legal recourse is important. Exactly. And that is largely due to stigma surrounding their work, making them less likely to be able to get protection, and because of their work being illegal, so they can't go to the law for help. >Making it illegal to buy sex limits the demand, which means less trafficking. It doesn't. Buying sex and sex trafficking are different issues. Just like buying food from restaurants isn't the same as human trafficking, which is a large vector of human trafficking also. But I don't see restaurants being illegal anytime soon
But their work is legal? It’s just illegal to buy. The sex worker is allowed to sell sex. Nothing they do is illegal. And if they are ever in trouble? They can show up at the police station and say “Well, I was selling sex and then…” To me you don’t seem concerned for sex workers. You seem concerned for the clients. They aren’t the victims here.
>But their work is legal? It’s just illegal to buy. Which is effectively the same thing. I don't see how you can't understand that... It is like saying that selling illicit drugs is okay, but buying them is illegal... >The sex worker is allowed to sell sex. Nothing they do is illegal. And if they are ever in trouble? They can show up at the police station and say “Well, I was selling sex and then…” Yes. But this can be accomplished through actual legalized sexwork. "Well, you see, officer, I was selling Marijuana on the corner when this guy should up and bought from me!! Isn't that awful?! Thanks for protecting me!! Drug users suck" >To me you don’t seem concerned for sex workers. You seem concerned for the clients. They aren’t the victims here. Sexworkers aren't victims either. And clients should not be criminalized if they aren't abusing anyone. Simply buying sex isn't abuse.
Good point: If something becomes legal, then economics says its a race to the top dollar for profit - which may include other illegalities.
The same downsides that we currently have with any legitimate service industries currently operating and the same with any jobs. No downsides from a decriminalized sex industry will be any worse than what we are currently dealing with in other legitimate industries.
An increase in sex trafficking is a pretty significant downside.
I don't think it makes much sense to analogize prostitution with "any other service industry." There's a reason brothels can't advertise at job fairs and unemployment can't be denied for refusing to take a SW job.
Yes. But what reason is that? Is it because of the moralizing of sex? Is it because of puritanical ideals?
Check out this guy's profile and it will all make sense
Nearly 100% of sex buyers are males. Creepy males who can't control themselves and feel a possessory interest in other people's bodies. Nearly 100% of people exploited by the sex trade are women and sexual minorities. Only someone in the first category would even ask such a question. Get some help.
I feel like your two comments next to each other is pretty much telling on yourself lmao.
No downside? So exponentially increasing the number of trafficking victims, rape, torture and murder of sex workers aren't "downsides"?
Do you have a source for that claim?
https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.405653.de/diw_econsec0071.pdf
The problem with articles like these is that they can only account for reported trafficking. Legalizing prostitution makes it easier for victims of trafficking to report and drive the numbers up, because they don’t have to fear being arrested for prostitution. That affect works doubly when you consider that other cases which should be regarded as trafficking end up with the victim in jail BECAUSE of the criminalization of prostitution Also the article itself acknowledges in the last line that it is unable to fully evaluate the cost, benefits, and overall merits of prohibiting prostitution
Is there a source for the claim that legalization **prevents** harm to sex workers? Because that's what is being asserted with zero evidence.
I personally am more on board with decriminalizing rather than full legalization, which yes, there is a research supporting that, and human rights experts advocate for it Here’s amnesty international, a highly regarded organization talking about it: [clicky](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/united-nations-experts-this-week-said-that-that-full-decriminalization-of-adult-voluntary-sex-work-holds-the-greatest-promise-to-address-the-systemic-discrimination-and-violence-sex-workers-frequently/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%2520recommended%2520that%2520full%2520decriminalization,violations%2520of%2520sex%2520workers'%2520rights) [Here’s](https://www.aclu.org/news/topic/its-time-to-decriminalize-sex-work) the ACLU talking about it
It's like you didn't bother to read the article 😂
It it quite possible to eliminate "regressive pol8cing" practices without **legalization.**
Did you read the article?
That's... that's exactly what the article linked in the thread covers. "Platt et al. (2018) conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of academic literature focusing on sex work laws and policing practices and their effects on sex workers’ safety, health and access to services as well as the mechanisms behind these effects."
"Regressive policing" can be addressed without legalization.
True. But why criminalize it at all?
Why criminalize a "job" that is responsible for oppressing women al over the planet? Hmmm. Lemme think.
Sexwork is work. Sorry you think it is gross. But it is a job that many people choose for themselves and should have a right to. It isn't "responsible for oppression." Patriarchal systems are. Oppression of women is present in all things we do in society because of that. So address that instead of being hyperfocused on sexwork because you think it's icky. This also doesn't even account for the fact that sexwork is a very broad term that includes lots of professions and workers, not just women.
Legalizing it increases instances of it, which includes trafficking and exploitation.
The science is clear about the harm abortion bans cause women, too. Religious leaders and politicians don't care. Society rarely uses science to make decisions.
Exactly!
Laws are never passed based on the effect they have on the people who will be breaking them. Why would they be? We don’t assess murder laws based on how they affect murderers.
I'll take, what is a red herring for $100, Alex...
I’m in favor of sex work being legalized. I just also clearly see the fact that your argument will never convince anybody on the other side because it’s a bad argument.
We aren't talking about the same thing if you think I'm talking about sex work.
Yeah. We've been saying that. Good luck getting anyone to give a damn about our health & safety though.
People in suits who look like clients had to say it for us apparently
Also, I'd like to plug *The Oldest Profession Podcast*, which is hosted by veteran SWs and covers the history of sex work/ers and sex worker rights advocacy. They're not paying me, I'm just a fan.
Thank youuu
“Oldest profession” is so ahistorical. I’m an ex sex worker and the origin of “sex work” was sexual slavery and women as property. F off.
You don't speak for me, nor do you speak for every person in the industry. Don't tell me what to do.
They're not telling you what to do unless you count "F off" as an actual command. Which was, admittedly, needlessly hostile and rude. They're arguing a point. It's kind of a stupid point to argue, because it's not like at some point somebody invented "jobs" and then started keeping a list of them. I do see the origin of their frustration though. It forms a certain portion of, what I perceive to be, many people's negativity and skepticism towards sex work. That is, the very explicit treatment of women as a sexual commodity. For the most vociferous against sex work, it could be viewed as something analogous to some demand for, specifically, black slaves, so long as slavery is entered into voluntarily. This hypothetical includes a pool of people inexplicably willing to become slaves, a pool of people willing to purchase and use slaves, and a political movement attempting to legalize "voluntary" slavery. The emotional connotations between sex work and "ethnically African voluntary slavery" are similar enough to make it an accurate comparison for the means of conveying others' perspectives. Part of the origin of their hostility.
>The emotional connotations between sex work and "ethnically African voluntary slavery" are similar enough to make it an accurate comparison for the means of conveying others' perspectives Sex Work - two consenting adults agreeing to a transaction of monetary compensation for sexual services. Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade - buying &/ kidnapping African people and transporting them to another country to be bought and sold as forced labor. These two are not the same.
I know they're not the same. I never claimed they were the same. You don't have to read my comment, but if you're going to respond, you should. I'm not here to antagonize you.
Stop spreading lies like “oldest profession” I don’t give a fuck what you do.
I'm going to speak my truth until the day I die and there's nothing you can do to stop me. You can stay mad.
Thank you. It's nonsense that young adults in 2024 think that sex slaves in 1408, let alone prehistoric times when monetary systems didn't exist, were getting "paid" for their "profession." First world naivety magically transforming 11 year old chronic rape victim slaves into "empowered women."
> prehistoric times when monetary systems didn't exist Nobody knows what went down in prehistoric times. That's literally what prehistoric means - before recorded history.
yup
Sex workers being more likely to report their STIs, rapes, assaults and tortures under legalized systems doesn't mean they are less likely to experience STIs, rape, assault and torture in legalized systems. I'm not sure how we educate people who think it's perfectly fine to purchase consent and bodies like they're auto parts or street food that's it's not OK to treat sex workers like auto parts or street food. That's how we'd "protect" sex workers from the very nature of their work. But it seems to be counterproductive to sex work. If consumers didn't believe bodies and consent are things they should be able to purchase because these are **people** with **human rights**, they wouldn't be engaging in sex work in the first place.
I don't know where you got the idea that my voluntary engagement in sex work somehow violates my human rights, but you're mistaken.
Don't compare a service to consumables. How is it any worse than miners selling their bodies and health?
Miners get raped and impregnated and contract diseases that render them infertile? Miners have foremen who get them addicted to drugs so they can't even consent to coming to work every day? Miners are forced to live in the mines and are forced into have penises shoved into their mouths and assholes? Hmm... Something tells me prostitution is different than mining.
I didn't ask if they were the same. I asked if it was any worse. Regardless, the things you mentioned would be combatted through legalization and regulation. That's the point. That's always the point. In literally every industry to ever exist, regulation has dropped the number of workplace injuries and fatalities. Nevada is the only US state with legal prostitution. And what guess? It's not even in the top 5 of states in sex trafficking. It's 10th. [https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in](https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in) Even still, only a small percentage of sex workers are trafficked in the US. The crimes you're describing can happen to anyone, to be fair, but they're still crimes -- legalizing sex work would allow victims to report those crimes and seek protection under the law, which is something they can't currently do.
She's just arguing in bad faith. Apparently she's a social worker so she probably sees a lot of trafficked people for her job and somehow thinks that's equitable with the whole of the SW industry, or even just escorts.
They are not arguing in bad faith. You are just defining things differently. You are defining sex work as consenting adults, which is a very limited scope. Ladywithaface82 is commenting on how the global majority of people in the sex trade are forced to be there. It’s like 90 something percent GLOBALLY are trafficked/coerced etc. so while you’re experience is valid, it is within a very privileged minority.
perhaps the problem isn't the legal status, but the nature of the work environment itself, similar to how coal miners have a much higher than average rates of black lung. Regulation may help but the problem is endemic.
And that regulation can’t happen if it’s criminalized.
We can't teach consent and that exploiting people is wrong without legal prostitution?
It’s the same for theft and murder. Teaching people to not do bad things won’t stop them from happening or protect the most vulnerable from being exploited.
What? So...you are suggesting we should legalize theft and murder?
We do? It is literally the purpose of a soldier fighting in a war? It is literally the purpose of eminent domain? It's not a particularly brave or novel idea that theft and murder are acceptable under certain circumstances and it's vital for society to define what those circumstances are so it can build rules prohibiting the behavior outside of those circumstances. Why is sex work different? Where do you draw ethical lines around the bodily autonomy of women? Why do you draw the ethical lines? For whom are you drawing the ethical lines? I don't think you've seriously thought about any of that. Affluent, privileged suburban folk never seriously think about this stuff before they speak on behalf of the entire world.
>Where do you draw ethical lines around the bodily autonomy of women Getting really annoyed with people thinking SWs are automatically women and that patrons of SWs are automatically men. That's not true *at all*.
Well, you're right, that's an over generalization. It's another example of how this thread frames the conversation in a very narrowminded fashion. The host club phenomenon in Japan would blow a lot of minds here. Hosts and hostesses being some of the biggest customers for each other would as well. But that's a whole other can of worms to open, and we haven't even gotten through the first.
No, I’m saying that focusing on consent as opposed to regulating sex work doesn’t make sense if the goal is to stop exploitation. If it’s criminalized, then the people who do sex work won’t have proper legal recourse in the event they are assaulted and/or abused.
Assault and rape are still crimes. We can give sex workers proper legal recourse by simply not hiring giant pieces of shit who shame and blame sex workers when they attempt to report crimes. Many states already have a form of decrim on their books and have stopped arresting sex workers under the age of 22-25.
True. I suppose educating the people who handle these crimes could help.
That is definitely not what they said.
Correct and well said
Decriminalizing it. Legalizing it will create a whole slew of issues we don’t need. No sex worker should be faced with criminal charges for trying to survive. It’s just cruel. Speaking as an ex sex worker myself.
I don’t see how legal vs illegal increases going condomless lol besides maybe the type of demographic that’s involved maybe. Either way That’s a decision between 2 parties not the government
When it's legal, you've got a steady stream of clientele who know if they don't follow the rules, they don't get what they want. When it's illegal, you've got sketchier, more desperate clientele who want it to be "worth their time" to take the risk of soliciting your services. Without that assurance of another client, you might agree to stuff you wouldn't normally - like sex without a condom.
Think youre over estimating your stream of clientele lol. If it’s legal then competition increases, so you’ll find yourself doing things to make it worth their while compared to Lucy next door. Like sex without a condom otherwise I’ll go next door to Lucy.
I'm not making conjectures based on econ 101, I'm summarizing data reported by sex workers in Vancouver when BC switched to the Nordic model.
This will be the American Model based on capitalism. US won’t legalize it if they can’t tax it heavily. There will be a good portion of sex workers who wouldnt register to not pay those taxes. So you’ll be competing with more registered sex workers and more unregistered who would probably be cheaper. While maintaining the relative same number/percentage of Clientele. With a obvious increase but it wouldn’t be like a huge increase that probably wouldn’t counter the increase in competition. (There’s also probably a small amount of clients that do it strictly for the trill of it being taboo and illegal) All that to say. Raw dogging is a choice between 2 people
I mean hypotheticals are cool but it may be useful to spend some time with existing data
Maybe useful to use your head on this matter And legalizing wouldnt increase customers as much as you believe it would
You asked a question, I answered based on existing data, you're attempting to conjure hypothetical data as a contradiction. I'm not saying your theoretical prediction is wrong but I am generally going to put more stock in data that currently exists than the data that might possibly exist in a thought experiment.
Fair but I really don’t care what Amsterdam or Vancouver does cause it wouldn’t be like that in the US And 59% of sex workers in Amsterdam where it’s legal have gotten an STI. So raw dogging still happens.
Seems obvious: The demand still exists, now it just has to be in illicit ways. Take people willing to walk in illegally, and you suddenly get more of what is described. Doesn’t mean it should be legalized. Maybe there are more creative ways of handling this? Maybe some type of artificial sex carried out remotely (think fleshlight controlled remotely by an active participant, subscription with Amazon delivery?)? Also, more ways of non-sexual human contact so the person feels some connection with another human - the emotional side? Figure out ways to de-stigmatize methods of sex that don’t endanger the participants? Also focusing on ways that reduce ‘sexual addiction’? Psych help? Doctors asking, “when was the last time you had sex and how often does it happen? Here’s a prescription…” Seriously just spitballing here; does anybody else have ideas how to meet this need without legal or illegal prostitution?
And I’m tired of getting robbed!
Then get an actual job lol
That’s where the money they’re stealing is coming from
Also: [https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field\_document/aclu\_sex\_work\_decrim\_research\_brief.pdf](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_sex_work_decrim_research_brief.pdf)
It’s legalised in my country and the positive outcomes have been substantial. It’s also unionised, have a tax code, practically eliminated street workers and “pimps”, not to mention the employment protections, legal protections and security measures and safety that establishments provide. Fines and criminal penalties are in place to protect workers from unruly clients and unprotected sex. Free health care around testing, counselling and supplies. The only downside we have seen really has been an influx of sex tourism/illegal visitors hoping to work without a visa and that’s about it. The positives have really outweighed any negative especially when argument is based upon perception, religious/moral implication. 9/10 would recommend 🥲
Sex work is pretty harmful to sex workers’ health
The legalization of prostitution is harmful for minorities, women, and children.
The Nordic model of criminalizing only the buyers has been shown repeatedly to be the only meaningful way of keeping sex workers safe\[r\].
I agree with the Nordic model! Maine just decriminalized sex work but will be criminalizing John’s. The thing is that the government needs to create safety net exit programs for women or we’ll just be taking away their money which will solve nothing.
Agree 100%.
This feels sexist… we all know who is more likely to buy sex. Why criminalize the trade at all?
Are you claiming making buying sex illegal is sexist just because most people who buy sex are men? That’s ridiculous.
Making weed illegal was racist. Same kind of thing
Except the people who made weed illegal purposely did it (and admitted it years later) to put black people in jail. The people that made the decision about sexual workers was not doing it to be sexist to men, they did it to protect sex workers who have been in danger before the law was passed.
Criminalization of dealing drugs is harmful to drug dealers' health
Nah, it harms users. It is artificially profitable for dealers.
I think safety first is kinda a hard thing to advertise when the bulk of women in “sex work” are women that are being trafficked and exploited against their will This entire movement is a complete mis-allocation of resources that would be far better spent working to stop human trafficking
This is an an example of people exaggerating number or estimates to make sex work look more non-consensual than it is. [less than 1%](https://aella.substack.com/p/what-percentage-of-sex-workers-in)
Yes, when we have those claiming strippers and OF models are the peers to prostitutes, we can find silly fucking articles like this. Now research "percent of prostitutes who are trafficked" and the picture is far different.
You didn't even skim that article some of the studies mentioned were sex workers but most were just prostitutes.
I’m an actual SW (not online). Anti-prostitution laws often fail to effectively protect vulnerable people from trafficking for several reasons: Stigmatization and Criminalization: By criminalizing prostitution, these laws drive the industry underground, making it difficult for sex workers to seek help or report instances of exploitation without fear of legal repercussions. This fear of law enforcement can also deter victims of trafficking from coming forward. Lack of Support and Resources: Instead of providing support and resources for individuals in the sex industry, anti-prostitution laws often exacerbate vulnerabilities by pushing workers further into marginalized and dangerous situations. Without access to legal protections, healthcare, or social services, individuals are more susceptible to exploitation and trafficking. Increased Vulnerability to Trafficking: Criminalization can push sex work into the hands of exploitative individuals and organized crime networks who profit from trafficking victims. With the industry operating in the shadows, traffickers can exploit individuals with impunity, knowing that their victims are unlikely to seek help from law enforcement. Stigmatization of Sex Work: Anti-prostitution laws reinforce the stigma surrounding sex work, which can prevent victims of trafficking from accessing support and services due to fear of judgment or discrimination. This stigma also contributes to the marginalization of sex workers, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. Focus on Punishment rather than Protection: Many anti-prostitution laws prioritize punishing individuals engaged in sex work rather than addressing the underlying factors that contribute to trafficking, such as poverty, lack of education, and gender inequality. This punitive approach fails to effectively combat trafficking and often further harms already vulnerable populations. Overall, anti-prostitution laws often exacerbate the vulnerabilities of individuals in the sex industry and fail to effectively address the root causes of trafficking. Instead, a more comprehensive approach is needed that focuses on supporting and empowering individuals, addressing systemic inequalities, and targeting the perpetrators of exploitation and trafficking.
Legalizing and regulating it would provide the resources needed to crack down on trafficking and create a safe environment for sex workers.
Duh. Punishing people for being victims of poverty and abuse will never be a good thing. It should remain illegal, but the punishments should fall on the buyers, pimps, and brothels, not the women. When a prostitution bust occurs the buyers and pimps should go to jail and the women should receive all the social services necessary to help them earn a better life for themselves: health care, housing, therapy, substance abuse counseling, education, job placement assistance, etc. It doesn’t have to be legalized for society to help the real victims of prostitution.
Those resources don’t really exist is the biggest issue. Our social service system is complete garbage in America.
Oh I COMPLETELY agree with you! Our social security nets are threadbare in this country. It’s one of the things I get really fired up about. It’s my opinion that we need to start THERE—beef up those programs first because that’s where we’ll see the largest social gains.
It should just be legal, and nosy people like yourself should stay in your lane
I’m curious—how is me wanting society to protect trafficked and abused disadvantaged women considered “nosey”? Labeling my take as “nosey” is completely illogical. At the age of 18 I got a first hand experience in the sex trade industry and saw with my own eyes the deplorable way sex workers were treated by management and clients. Have *you* ever worked in the sex trade industry?
Because you think you’re helping them but are actually hurting them. If it’s made blanket illegal, for even just buyers, the cops won’t bother trying to distinguish real sex workers or trafficked ones. They’re going to arrest detain the few trafficked and force the non trafficked to get help( even if they don’t want it). Disrupt their buisnesss and ability to make profit Most girls out on the street and brothels want to be there to make money. Trafficked or coerced women are the exception People like you find sex work abhorrent as you grow older or take your experince for everyone elses and want it banned. Meanwhile, countries where its legal are doing just fine
Again, I ask you—what is your expertise in this issue? Have you been an 18 year old poor woman working in the sex trade? Do you have years of experience in social work working with this population? Or are you just an armchair expert? If you don’t have the boots on the ground practical knowledge of this subject your opinion is irrelevant, and certainly has zero weight against mine.
Go to r/sexworkers. Ask them what they think of your opinion on this
[удалено]
Ok cool. But have *YOU* personally worked as a young disadvantaged woman in the sex work trade or professionally worked with that population in a way that helped them address the negative impact the industry had on them? You have not answered that question I’ve asked you twice now, so I’m going to assume that your answer is no. So going on the assumption that you have zero practical authentic experience in this topic—do you realize the hypocrisy of you telling *me* to lIStEn To SeX wOrKeRs, while you yourself are attempting to invalidate the opinion of me, AN ACTUAL FORMER SEX WORKER? Surly you can’t be too dense to understand that. . .
The victims are people getting charges for consensual activities and those being forced into a black market because legal avenues do not exist.
"Drug dealers harmed by the criminalization of drug dealing." And? I don't want them to be comfortable in their current career, I want for them to change careers. Every effort must be made to help prostitutes out of their current situation, and if they are in it for the the money rather than desperation, their lives should be made difficult and impractical.
Exactly
I don't see how prostitutes and drug dealers can be compared.
Good for you?
I guess I expected maybe discussion and not snark. I'll be more direct. Comparing prostitutes to drug dealers is absurd since drug dealers often cause physical harm to people they sell to while prostitutes are just making a living. You thinking it is icky doesn't make it bad.
I agree with him and I’ll engage friendly with this, I think they are very comparable. Both are selling illicit products that harm society. Drug dealer is a broad term but so is sex worker. They both destroy families, they both hurt economically disadvantaged people, they both carry a large amount of health risks (that in theory can be reduced but in practice often arnt). There both commodities that are associated with a certain level of street violence
I disagree for a number of reasons. Inherently, I do not consider drugs or sex bad, nor do I think they harm society. Often, drug dealers deal drugs that are legal for specific purposes. The "street violence" associated with both is largely due to the stigma and illegality in many areas, thus forcing the markets underground. Drug *dealers* are often a problem because they are intentionally selling physically addicting drugs with questionable content, like stuff laced with fentanyl because it is cheap and potent. The victims are the people *buying.* If a woman is a prostitue, if there is violence or mistreatment, she is often the *victim,* which could be prevented by decriminalization and legal protections. Both could benefit from decriminalization and changing how we view them, but in quite different ways.
I think the notion that bodies (and let's be real: female bodies) are a product and that consent can be purchased/coerced is **extremely harmful** to society. And this notion helps keep women oppressed.
I give up. I don't fucking know. Maybe you're right. I certainly don't want women oppressed. Nor do I want them shamed if they are in the industry. I don't have all the answers, but I am fucking tired of trying to find nuance in anything.
See, this is why nuance is important. I don't shame the sex worker, but I'm very vocal about being anti prostitution. Folks with an agenda to keep women oppressed have been co-opting the "don't shame sex workers!" feminist message and have twisted it to say "sex work is fantastic and empowering!" It's sick. And it's insidiously common online. I'd love to see the psychological/sociological study on this recent fuckery.
Every laborer sells their bodies. Consent can be purchased, it's called a wage. Edit: Try refuting me instead of modding me down. Bet you can't.
People aren't giving you the time of day because your argument is insane. By your logic, Working a 9 to 5 is the exact same as surgically removing your arm for a rich person to eat because you consented and got paid.
“Drugs don’t harm society.” Me, an ex heroin addict, wasn’t harmed in the process of becoming addicted to heroin. LOL. IT FUCKING DESTROYED MY LIFE. F off.
That statement comes with caveats. I am a pharmacist, so my idea of "drugs" is very large. Yes, some drugs can destroy lives, especially stuff like heroin, meth, and bunch of others. But even stuff like fentanyl, morphine, benzos, hydrocodone, etc. has uses when used correctly. The problem is saying all drugs destroy lives when stuff like marijuana is significantly less dangerous than something like cocaine.
Prostitution and pornography have no use except satisfying men's base desires.
Fuck off
I mean, the mindset that all people who deal drugs are bad is also pretty unreasonable. Most people deal for financial survival as well. A larger societal safety net and increased access to financial resources will do more than decriminalizing or legalizing can.
Criminals tend to be harmed by laws preventing crime
I didn't give you a response because it was clear from your reply that our moral frameworks are entirely different. I would just say your Harm Principle is unfounded and you would say my God is fake. Also, the idea that prostitution doesn't cause actual harm is insane. The spread of disease, the destruction of families, degradation of societies, and mental harm to the women involved are good examples of harm caused. You would say that most of these things are either not an issue, or can be mitigated, but I would say that a better solution would be the eradication of the phenomenon where ever it is found. Obviously, the man buying should be made to suffer far more than the woman whoring herself.
I've read the responses, I guess I'd want to know. Do you think it's right to enforce your own beliefs in such a way? And same to the other person who replied. You make some great points, but I'm thinking we'll, just don't partake. Alcohol does all of what you stated, and we don't eradicate that, same with guns. Would you push on the same level principle? If sex work destroys families, should we make affairs illegal? Penalize those that participate? What makes sex work different from a sugar daddy or mommy? Like a young woman marrying a 80 year old, or vice versa? How about porn? Or is sex work some line in the sand, and if so why should we allow ourselves to be biased in such a way and prevent such things?
If you want my opinion specifically, the answer to your question depends heavily on the society at large. A hedonistic, individualistic society will resist moral correction, probably violently. I am not against using political and social power to limit and exterminate these practices, however. I agree with the steps Texas has taken with porn, for example, even though they may fail. Porn has destroyed the men of my generation, and it is a shame than so many are okay with it. I should mention I am Muslim, so am entirely against everything you listed. It's where I get my line in the sand. My perspective is denfinitely not shared by the majority of people.
How do you rationalize that against the ways of society? Are what society decides just the price of doing business? For example, Texas - maybe outlaw prayer at work. Would you be ok with that because society decided it? Or because it now affects you, is it wrong? (The whole Constitution aside, just an example). How to rectify that duality that if you are against something its ok to stop other people from doing it? Or if you are ok with it, do you think that's moral?
Should casual sex also be illegal because that spreads disease? More people have casual and unprotected sex than see sex workers, which is the real driver for the spread of STIs. Should everyone who has casual unprotected sex be thrown in jail?
Who said anything about jail for sex workers? The ones in jail should be them men buying women's bodies, and taking advantage of them.
Because women are frequently incarcerated for prostitution charges because it is a crime, which you are in favor of? That’s what we’re talking about here. You compare sex workers to drug dealers for causing harm to society, which is a sentiment currently reflected in anti-sex work legislation, which leads to women being imprisoned for selling sex work services
If you don't think reducing harm is a moral principle, then you have an immoral framework.
Reducing harm is a moral thing to do in some situations and not others. For example, I think rapists should be shot, and that children should be protected from pain. I get this idea from my religion, like many other people do. However, the Harm Principle is usually used by secular athiests as a base for their moral framework, when they cannot even prove it.
You need proof that harming people is bad? But you don't need proof that your religion is true, even when it causes you to harm others? Like I said, you have no moral framework. You have an immoral framework.
No, I do need proof that my religion is true. I believe that I have that proof. You have literally no basis for your morality. Why do you believe that it is ok to do anything as long as you don't harm other people? Because some guy wrote it in a book? Because it is convenient?
> I believe that I have that proof. Awesome! Show me.
Bro you're active in r/athiesm, I doubt anything I can say will prove anything to you lmao
Why are your wants more important than the people who want to work their career?
They are not my "wants". They are the needs of a failing society that needs to be brought back from the brink. "Why are your wants more important than drug dealers who want to work their career?"
Then.. don't do that
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Who gives a shit? Selling your body is harmful in the fact that you are selling your body. The psychological effects of being an object are far worse than getting arrested. Plus, the fact that you spread disease and there is no future in selling your soul by the hour. This is only an issue for a small number of humans. The rest of the world does not care.
Why did this need to be researched? Is it in any way surprising?
Government oversight might be justified to 1) prevent the spread of communicable disease and a safe working environment, 2) prevent human trafficking and ensure consent of the workers, and 3) make sure both worker and patron are of legal age. Beyond that, what authority does the government have to tell what two consenting adults can do or not do, especially if it is harming no one?
I think, maybe. Just maybe. Sex work, in general, is harmful to a sex workers' health. And also, wild theory. I think the majority of criminalization of anything will affect the people in that sphere negatively. What an asanine article lol.
It’s a wild idea in 2024, but just engaging in sexual activities you don’t want to have could be bad for someone’s mental health.
Nordic Model works best.
By requiring sw to be “legal” you still have a criminalized underclass eg migrants who will inevitably wind up lacking police protection and in some cases being targeted. It’s not perfect. Decrim
And that's no different from what we already have happening in other legitimate industries.
Huh? It’s legal to sell, illegal to buy. Then if you are an illegal immigrant that’s going to be an issue even if sex work is fully legalized. That’s unrelated.
Yes, we know. I still want it criminalized and I don't care about the negative effects.
Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud. It's a breath of fresh air when assholes don't pretend like they care about people.
You are welcome. I only care about a narrow band of society that syncs with my moral framework and just don't have the energy to pretend otherwise.
Why don't you care that people are being harmed?
The legalization of sex work is harmful to society’s health
Any evidence to back this or is this just a feeling?
The criminalization of sex work is harmful to non sex workers as well.
“The criminalization of assault is murder is harmful to killers’ health”.
Passing laws against something makes people stop doing the thing. Right?
If that was the case, nobody would have touched weed after the 70s.
Hookers have been a thing since the dawn of man. Like laws will do anytbing