SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Around the world, there's a growing movement to decriminalize sex work. Last year, Amnesty International, the largest human rights group in the world, came out with a recommendation that governments should decriminalize consensual sex work and develop laws that ensure workers are "protected from harm, exploitation and coercion." A United Nations commission has also come out in support of legalizing prostitution.
But the idea is a divisive one, stirring impassioned debates and concerns about the ways varying approaches could harm sex workers. Amnesty's recent policy drew strong support from public health advocates and intense backlash from those aiming to end prostitution completely.
Understanding the scope, harms and public health implications of policies addressing the world's oldest profession is really tricky. While prostitution - the buying and selling of sex - is a multibillion dollar industry, the sex trade is clandestine by nature. It's taboo. That makes it really hard to study, especially in the United States.
That's most often the case, except in this one part of the country, where the laws of prostitution were totally upended. It's a peculiar story that's largely left out of the current discussion. The place in question is not Nevada, where there's a small number of regulated brothels in certain rural counties.
It's a whole state - Rhode Island.
For several years, ending in 2009, indoor prostitution such as in massage parlors, strip clubs and through online escorts, was not a crime in this tiny New England State.
The whole thing happened somewhat unintentionally. But at the time, it fueled a heated public debate about sex, crime and health.
Years later, some are revisiting the lessons learned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:48PM (24 children)
I own my car. If I choose, I can sell it for whatever price I and the buyer find agreeable.
Above all else, you should own your body. If the state says you can't sell your body, you must be owned by the state. You surely don't own yourself.
Agreements between two consenting adults should be nobody else's business. This is just the nosy busybodies trying to make sure nobody ever enjoys a second of their lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:55PM (12 children)
Not really, there's numerous things that you're not allowed to do with your body because they cause problems. For example, you can't use your fist to beat somebody up and you can't expose yourself to children at the playground.
Why is it that you people have so much trouble with the concept of externalities? Nobody is saying that people can't have sex, what we're saying is that the consequences of paying for it aren't what we as a society want to be dealing with. The people who are pushing for decriminalization and full legalization are mostly people that have no idea what prostitution is like and the problems surrounding it. There's a reason why around here we require education for anybody we catch soliciting a prostitute.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:03PM (3 children)
Well I can but your point is physically harming someone else is, and well should be, against the law. So to continue the analogy, I can't use the car I own to crash into your house either. That's not among the rights of ownership.
But if you own something, you are allowed to sell it.
So, nobody owns their own bodies.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Mykl on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:36AM
No. You are essentially advocating the legalization of slavery (which is literally selling your body to somebody else). There are things that you can possess/own, but which cannot be sold or transferred. Examples are citizenship or qualifications such as degrees. Literally selling yourself into slavery is also illegal as ownership of your body is non-transferable.
Besides, prostitution would more accurately be described as renting your body to somebody else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:02AM (1 child)
You argued that what we do with our bodies is our own business. You can argue with me all you want, but the reality is that what we do with our bodies isn't without limits. A lot of the things we do with our bodies do impact other people and society in general and it's naive to suggest otherwise.
Punching somebody in the face is something that most people agree is wrong, however, what if that person has insulted you? Is it still wrong? Or, how about if you think they're about to rob you? Still wrong?
The question is where we draw the line, it's clear to most adults that there are limits to our freedoms and that's necessary in order to ensure that we have freedoms rather than all being stuck doing whatever the most powerful people say we should do.
In this case, there's limited reason for this service to be legal and a few reasons that it shouldn't be. But, the people looking to legalize and decriminalize don't actually have any arguments, so this weak argument gets trotted out about how this is an unacceptable breach of our rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @03:25AM
What is the point of arbitrarily creating limits on personal freedoms merely because you conclude that limits to freedoms should exist? In the case of prostitution, sure, there are limited reasons for prostitution, but there are also limited reasons against prostitution. The deciding factor should be that people want prostitution. After all, if you're not allowed to use freedoms to pursue your desires, then they aren't really freedoms.
In a democratic, free world, you should have really compelling reasons for constraining freedoms. Not because there are "a few reasons" to constrain freedom or even weaker some weird cyclic argument where we constrain freedom because freedom must be constrained. In other words, our restrictions on what is allowed should be highly permissive with constraints coming from inflicting violation of other peoples' rights (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) rather than pathetic and often imaginary concerns.
I'll note here that we have a remarkable lack of credible reasons for making prostitution illegal, not just in your post or in the thread, but in this entire discussion. And that is to be expected, since prostitution doesn't violated anyone's rights. Thus, arguing from a rights perspective, while it might be weak, it is also good enough due to the far weaker arguments of opposition to legal prostitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
For one person to punch another person in the face involves the involuntary allocation of the punched person's resources (e.g., of the punched person's face). That is, you're still dealing with the question "Is this my body or not?"
As for exposing oneself to children at the playground, that too can be understood in the context of property rights, and the involuntary allocation of someone else's resources; at the very least, the owner of the playground could establish usage rules to which people entering the playground must agree in advance, including the agreement not to flash other people, etc.
What you call "externalities" is really just code for "poorly organized society".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:34AM
Exernalities is code word for somebody else is stuck cleaning up your mess you selfish asshole prick.
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:39PM
You know professional boxing is a thing, right? And MMA, and martial arts tournaments, etc. So yes, there are currently legal ways that you can use your fist to beat up somebody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)
That sentence doesn't say anything unless you specify what consequences you mean, why you consider those consequences as negative, and why you consider those consequences to be inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
Oh, and I forgot: Who is "we".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:13PM
You can spot a collectivist a country-mile away. A collectivist confuses himself with everybody else, and the consequences of this confusion are dire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:47PM
What if the cure to the problems is worse than the problems to begin with? That is the case with prohibition of drugs and it is also the case with prohibition of prostitution. Prohibition creates new externalities that are worse than the original problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:34AM
So the grandparent was asserting that because he owns his own body, that means he owns the bodies of other people too? Maybe you should learn what the argument is and think about what it actually means. Just because I own my fist, doesn't mean I get to beat up other people with it. But that's because I don't own those other people and hence, don't have the right to inflict harm upon them, not because you can wave some vague term like "problems" about.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
I mean, one of the first things done when a person is diagnosed with being "male" is to send him to the operating room for genital-reconstruction surgery to have a swath of "his" genital tissue stripped away and burnt in an incinerator (or sold for research; look it up).
So, it's pretty clear that people do not own "their" bodies, especially not "their" sexual organs, especially if they suffer from a genetic aberration known as "deficient X chromosome" (known more colloquially as "Y chromosome").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
But that's not because of any laws.
It's just asshole or ignorant parents following societal (or religious) norms.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:04PM
Why are those norms a thing? Obviously, because no one thinks you own your own body.
It's not offtopic—it's answering the question; the answer is that American society does not think you own your own body, as evidenced by the history of norms and prohibitions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:00PM
No one can force circumcision of adults or force adults not to circumcise themselves.
We already have well established law that parents can act on behalf of their children with very wide latitude on what that means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:16PM
Because those busybodies could never enjoy theirs so everyone else has to equally suffer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:21PM
In the USA (and many other countries) I don't think you're allowed to sell your kidney. This is what you are allowed to sell: http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/10-body-parts-you-can-legally-sell-for-big-bucks/ [therichest.com]
So if you're in the USA the State owns you. You don't own yourself. Boohoo.
Seriously though, prostitution is NOT selling your body. It's more like services or at most renting. If you buy a car, the you can rip the doors off etc. But if you rent a car there are far more limits on what you are allowed to do. Usually the rented car has to be returned in decent working condition, full tank etc ;).
As for my opinion on prostitution as a job. You can talk about exploitation all you want but zillions of people in the world have crappy jobs they don't like, few/zero alternatives and those jobs don't pay as well as sucking dick.
Prostitution is a higher paying but mostly crappy job. Would you as a straight guy suck someone else's dick for money or take it up your butt? Given enough money maybe you would, but it's not going to be a task you enjoy. That's how most prostitutes probably feel about most customers after a while. Don't go flatter yourself that the hooker really finds you attractive etc. Maybe the naive noobs might, but after a while most get hardened. Say she likes you but you're mainly using her even if you treat her well and make it clear you aren't going to marry her etc, so what happens to her after a few cycles of this?
There will be those who are genuinely OK with that and if they are lucky they might have a few customers they actually like. But how many hookers can earn enough just servicing only the few she likes? Only a few lucky courtesans. Not most hookers.
If you really want to reduce prostitution (legal/illegal) and make it less "exploitative" provide this:
1) Universal healthcare
2) Basic Income or better job opportunities
3) Free/subsidized education
4) Availability of birth control
In poorer countries there are indeed sex slaves and trafficked victims, but in many cases many of the girls are _voluntarily_ doing it. Why? Because some beloved relative has cancer or whatever and the USD200/month job at the factory isn't going to pay for treatment. Or the girl for some unfortunate reason needs to support a bunch of people (grandparents, parents etc).
Once you have all that then we can say those going into prostitution are doing it not because they were born unlucky into a shitty life but they really want the job. And even then would-be prostitutes should be required to attend courses first so that they know the full disgusting bits of what it entails (there are plenty of stupid ignorant people out there). Better for them to know before they've taken out a mortgage etc. I just had a masseuse complained about a customer who smoked - said he was really smelly etc (she's fine with me, because I shower etc first). Now imagine a hooker having to fuck and suck some customer with BO, poor hygiene etc (yeah maybe you can reject customers but what if you've taken out a big mortgage and the Brothel Boss says your "acceptance rate" is too low?).
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:34AM (4 children)
I think the issue is of informed consent. Do you fully understand the ramifications of selling your body to someone else? What about body parts? What if you were offered one million euro/dollars/pounds for your hand? Do you think you fully understand what that means down the line? What about other organs, sure your liver will grow back, you can get by with only one lung, but how much is a reasonable sum of money to part with these bits of you?
I don't pretend to know what the emotional or physical cost of prostitution is for people doing the job long-term. How much would you charge someone to fuck you? Complete stranger with no knowledge of their medical history and only a thin piece of latex to protect you. There is also interview process, you don't get a few meeting to get a feel for the person before deciding whether they have intercourse with you or not. You only get a quick glance at them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:20PM (3 children)
Do you fully understand what that means to not accept the offer? One million euro/dollars/pounds is life altering for the poor. It's unlikely that the rejection choice is any better understood than the acceptance choice. The game goes both ways.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:11PM
And there is it. You can exploit someone in dire circumstances if full and complete ownership of your own body implies you can sell (non-replaceable) bits of yourself for cash. One million dollars was a figure out of thin air, but what about one thousand? What if someone is so poor that one thousand seems reasonable? What about 500?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
I'd say less than 1% of poor would put that one million to good use, and soon after they would sell their other hand, at which point they would become cripples on society's dole once again. Giving them the option to cripple themselves for illusion of better life is the height of malice. And of course the first hand may fetch 1 million, but the market will quickly adjust and you will have idiots selling their hands for $5K within 3 months.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:49PM
Well, what are we doing with those hands anyway? I gather they're getting tossed in the trash in the above example. So if you know ahead of time that the hand and money will both be trashed in short order with more suffering resulting than before, then sure, it is malice.
But it isn't. It's a trade. That means both parties willingly entered into agreement.
You do realize this runs counter to the narrative that the poor are that way merely through bad luck?