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