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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:58AM (3 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:58AM (#551382) Journal

    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. ;)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:26AM (2 children)

    by anotherblackhat (4722) on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:26AM (#551396)

    Another twist is to test customers as well.

    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)

      by kaszz (4211) on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:46AM (#551402) Journal

      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

        by anotherblackhat (4722) on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:30PM (#551637)

        Haven't seen any though.

        Are you just trolling? The fine article has some.

        Have you seen any evidence for your position? Or are you just quoting dogma?