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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:03PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:03PM (#551327)

    the willingness to pay money for it is not immoral

    My viewpoint is a little different. I think sex is morally supposed to be more than a physical thing. If you're literally just paying someone for it, it's no more than a physical thing...And I'd consider that immoral.

    It's one of those things that keeps humans from just being animals.

    I know that's a pretty unpopular view that many people won't agree with, but I'd urge you to consider what the point of sex is; maybe it's possible to get past the cynicism and see that it should and even can be more than just physical relief.

    (But then, this article's discussion is focused on legality, not morality. One involves should/should not, but the other involves shall/shall not.)

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:27PM (#551348)

    I don't believe that sex is inherently sacred or meaningful and I don't believe that humans have souls that separate them from other animals.

    what the point of sex is

    Our intentions can give meaning to our words and actions. That is why we can give more meaning to sex and turn the act into "making love".

    Sadly, not everyone can find someone they can love.

    Thanks for pushing-back.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:20AM (2 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:20AM (#551368) Journal

    I think sex is morally supposed to be more than a physical thing.

    That's fine. For you. Those of us who think otherwise would just as soon you keep your personal or club's views on morality completely and utterly out of our lives, thanks.

    The only "moral" issue here, insofar as there is one, is that of informed consent.

    We can discuss what "informed" means, and we can discuss what "consent" means, and those are rich and interesting topics with broad applicability, in fact as near as I can tell universal applicability, but as soon as you, or anyone, starts to impose rules on top of those... y'all can totally trust me to keep your secrets, because I'm not listening.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (#551381)

      Different AC:

      I largely agree with you.

      There is at least one other moral aspect to some kinds of sex: responsibility. Responsibility to know your health status, even if asymptomatic, when engaging in sexual contact and the responsibility for the chance of pregnancy.

      You could argue that this could be covered under "informed", but people do not always make a good faith effort to inform themselves about their health status (because the truth can be scary) or actually consider the implications or risk of a pregnancy. Being ignorant in these matters would be irresponsible - not necessarily deceptive.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:21PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:21PM (#551816) Journal

        You could argue that this could be covered under "informed", but people do not always make a good faith effort to inform themselves about their health status (because the truth can be scary) or actually consider the implications or risk of a pregnancy. Being ignorant in these matters would be irresponsible - not necessarily deceptive.

        I would argue exactly that.

        I view it as the responsibility of the educational system to inculcate the needed understanding. It's an awful failure that it generally doesn't.

        I think "informed" should be a matter of licensing. The line in the sand drawn by age that our chickenshit legislators have gone for is woefully unsuited to the task of actually letting us know if someone actually has a sufficient knowledge of sexuality, sexual health, social consequences at the time, etc. Sex can be just as dangerous to your life, and the lives of others, as a car wreck. It can radically change your future, all manner of knock-on effects are known, some medical, some emotional, some financial, etc. You should be tested; and I want to see your certification before we play.

        it's probably a good idea to formalize consent, too. Somehow. Man, there's a conversation starter. :)

        It's a huge can of worms, because the superstitious and the wanna-be mommy types will instantly try and impose their bat-shittery upon any sane attempt to clean up the huge, stinking mess they've made for the rest of us.

        It'd be nice if someone set up a private implementation of these things. Seeing as how getting the government to actually do the right thing here would be like trying to push a bank vault up a hill with a single q-tip.

  • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:51AM

    by t-3 (4907) on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:51AM (#551377)

    So are you religious, and think sex is something that should only happen between a man and woman who are married, or you one of those people who have been brainwashed by renaissance-era troubadours? "Love" is a social construct, historically it's never been a factor in marriage or sex. Current views around marriage and sex descend from concerns about inheritance and legitimacy, with a heaping portion of racism and societal control on top. My morals tell me: people should be able to do what they like with their own bodies as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. Sure, prostitute yourself, but non-consensual pimping is wrong (note the non-consensual, there's nothing wrong with a manager or agent, but nobody should be forced). People should also be free to seek the purchase of services from others as long as these services are willingly offered and not dangerous (the mentally disabled and those not capable of legal consent should obviously be protected, safe working conditions should be enforced (premises and persons regularly inspected and validated), mutilation/physical harm should be limited). With proper regulation, legal prostitution is entirely workable and would eliminate a lot of the trafficking, strip club "vip areas", etc. Of course, to really solve a lot of the problems, drugs ALSO need to be legal, and other black market economies brought into the light, because as long as there are desperate people there is an opportunity for exploitation...

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:34AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:34AM (#551459) Journal

    I am absolutely with you on this, although I try not to let it inform my feelings about policies. Sex is...amazing, so, so, SO much more than just the physical aspect of it. I've only had two partners (and only wanted one; was really hoping for a civil union, and we had broken up before SSM was allowed in law). What they say about feeling like one soul, about melting into your lover, it's all true, all of it. You CAN just fuck, but for me personally, I'll just rub off or finger myself if all I want is an orgasm. There's a world of difference between having sex and making love.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...