Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the touchy-subject dept.

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.

Source: http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/105393-prostitution-decriminalized-rhode-islands-experiment


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:00PM (#551172)

    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").

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)

    by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:08PM (#551274) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:04PM (#551341)

      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

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:00PM (#551599) Journal

    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).

    No one can force circumcision of adults or force adults not to circumcise themselves.

    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").

    We already have well established law that parents can act on behalf of their children with very wide latitude on what that means.