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: 2, Disagree) by kaszz on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:09PM (7 children)
The problem is mainly disease transmission and given Murphy's law and condoms. It will be spread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:33PM
That's not a problem for the virgin basement dwellers.
And a lot less of a problem for the couples who are really not having sex outside of marriage. They are more likely to be killed by a deadly flu or other plague than by an STD.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:52PM
With legalized prostitution, it is easy to add a regulation that each prostitute must have a regular test for STDs. Also, when prostitution is legal, it is much easier for the prostitute to actually enforce using a condom.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (4 children)
So how do you explain the 40% drop in gonorrhea?
If the "problem" was really disease transmission, the evidence suggests that decriminalizing is the way to go.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:58AM (3 children)
Another twist is to test customers as well. That way the whole business would be pretty much nothing to bother with.
Oh btw.. That might collide with the habits of politicians, executive class people, and other sadists. ;)
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:26AM (2 children)
Is there any evidence that demanding testing helps?
As far as I know, there have been 0 incidents of HIV and lower incidence of STDs than the general population, according to reports from the legalizied brothels of Nevada.
Or to put it another way, all evidence shows that prostitutes are less likely to have STDs, not more.
It makes more sense to test people at random than the low risk group that is prostitutes and their customers.
There is real evidence that decriminalization reduces STDs in the general population.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)
Perhaps because those regulated brothel prostitutes requires condom. Or even testing?
If there is evidence that show what you say. Then it's great. Haven't seen any though.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:30PM
Are you just trolling? The fine article has some.
Have you seen any evidence for your position? Or are you just quoting dogma?