It's going to take a lot of work to convince people an increase in sex worker safety is worth the cost of normalizing sex work.
It's already depressing enough seeing people destroying their lives on slot machines in every bar and gas station. I'd rather not see sex workers.
What the fuck do slot machines have to do with sex work?
Because sex work is immoral and destroys lives.
Yeah, legalizing and regulating prostitution would make it safer. Legalizing and regulating meth would make it safer too. Fuck that.
I've found that when morality is tossed around in this conversation it usually means control of women's choices or agency over their own bodies, which makes me really hesitant to listen to any argument built around such a framework.
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
Sex work destroys lives
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+9
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Sex Work is immoral because people treat it as a character flaw to be a sex worker or to see the wrong kind of sex worker.
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up. They sell both things knowing what their actual use will be.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
Sex work destroys lives
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
I mean, "sex work is immoral" seems like the easiest of lifts here. You know "sex is a sacred act between and husband and wife joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of god" or whatever. Or pick some other religious or non-religious moral system, same thing.
It's just that it doesn't fucking matter. I mean, Jehovah's Witnesseses think giving blood is immoral. We just don't care that they think that.
Sure, your moral system considers it wrong. That's fine. Doesn't matter with respect to the law.
shryke on
+13
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Sex Work is immoral because people treat it as a character flaw to be a sex worker or to see the wrong kind of sex worker.
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
I have some news for you about how stigmatized these things are
Sex Work is immoral because people treat it as a character flaw to be a sex worker or to see the wrong kind of sex worker.
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
I have some news for you about how stigmatized these things are
But not in a legal sense and honestly that's where it matters.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Sex Work is immoral because people treat it as a character flaw to be a sex worker or to see the wrong kind of sex worker.
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up. They sell both things knowing what their actual use will be.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
I think you will find that a lot of people who think sex work is immoral also think those things are immoral or at the least take a dim view of them.
eg - I would not say most of society is kind to porn stars either, even though what they do is actually legal.
+3
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Sex Work is immoral because people treat it as a character flaw to be a sex worker or to see the wrong kind of sex worker.
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
I have some news for you about how stigmatized these things are
But not in a legal sense and honestly that's where it matters.
but you were talking about how sex work is immoral and people viewing it as a character flaw
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
Sex work destroys lives
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
I mean, "sex work is immoral" seems like the easiest of lifts here. You know "sex is a sacred act between and husband and wife joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of god" or whatever. Or pick some other religious or non-religious moral system, same thing.
It's just that it doesn't fucking matter. I mean, Jehovah's Witnesseses think giving blood is immoral. We just don't care that they think that.
Sure, your moral system considers it wrong. That's fine. Doesn't matter with respect to the law.
We care a bit. Jehovah's witnesses get special considerations for surgeries and stuff because of the overarching principles of autonomy and consent. We also make laws based on competing moral codes - like with gambling.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
Sex work destroys lives
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
I mean, "sex work is immoral" seems like the easiest of lifts here. You know "sex is a sacred act between and husband and wife joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of god" or whatever. Or pick some other religious or non-religious moral system, same thing.
It's just that it doesn't fucking matter. I mean, Jehovah's Witnesseses think giving blood is immoral. We just don't care that they think that.
Sure, your moral system considers it wrong. That's fine. Doesn't matter with respect to the law.
We care a bit. Jehovah's witnesses get special considerations for surgeries and stuff because of the overarching principles of autonomy and consent. We also make laws based on competing moral codes - like with gambling.
Nah. We accommodate them if possible. In the same way you don't have to have sex with a sex worker if you don't want to. Nobody is making blood transfusions illegal though.
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
Sex work destroys lives
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
I mean, "sex work is immoral" seems like the easiest of lifts here. You know "sex is a sacred act between and husband and wife joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of god" or whatever. Or pick some other religious or non-religious moral system, same thing.
It's just that it doesn't fucking matter. I mean, Jehovah's Witnesseses think giving blood is immoral. We just don't care that they think that.
Sure, your moral system considers it wrong. That's fine. Doesn't matter with respect to the law.
We care a bit. Jehovah's witnesses get special considerations for surgeries and stuff because of the overarching principles of autonomy and consent. We also make laws based on competing moral codes - like with gambling.
Nah. We accommodate them if possible. In the same way you don't have to have sex with a sex worker if you don't want to. Nobody is making blood transfusions illegal though.
This accommodation is the law though, and it is basically regulation. We are monitored to ensure these accommodations are met, and this is enforced via the legal system when necessary.
This is more of a modification rather than a refutation of your argument.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Regulation, when created in good faith, protects workers and communities from harmful practices and denial of basic services.
I really don't want to see what happens with unregulated megacorp sex work. Unpaid internships are bad enough as is.
It's going to take a lot of work to convince people an increase in sex worker safety is worth the cost of normalizing sex work.
It's already depressing enough seeing people destroying their lives on slot machines in every bar and gas station. I'd rather not see sex workers.
What the fuck do slot machines have to do with sex work?
Because sex work is immoral and destroys lives.
I would like your reasoning behind both of those assertions, please, as they're pretty weighty, and I don't want to make assumptions about how you arrived at those conclusions.
Decriminalization, and ultimately legalization, would shatter human trafficking in America.
Human trafficking occurs in non sex-work contexts in the US as well, and even on the sex work side I'm unconvinced it would work as well as many think. The main question becomes whether...and apologies if this veers into the dehumanization issue, but I don't know another way to put it...the supply of people willing to engage in sex work freely is sufficient to meet the new induced demand of people who would patronize sex workers once the risk of prosecution goes away. If there's still a gap between those two, there's still plenty of room for human traffickers to fill the gap. It could potentially even make it more difficult to root out, because once you legalize it means that sex work is no longer a crime per se, meaning it's no longer sufficient on its face to look deeper into a business. I'm not sure any reasonable amount of regulation will be enough to offset that impact either.
I'm not saying it wouldn't help. I'm simply saying I don't think it's as obvious a boon on this front as its often made out to be. Human trafficking is, from what I understand, still a very real issue in markets that allow regulated legal sex work.
The site produced a lot of content over the years to put it mildly which would have given cover for videos produced from these 22 women. While they do have a chance to get compensation for harm done with the civil suit, they've definitely been hurt by the ordeal.
Is there any place with legalized or decriminalized prostitution that's actually doing it well?
Until recently, The Netherlands was at the forefront, but they are literally trying to use a form of gentrification and clearing up a lot of the areas around the most famous district in Amsterdam. There has also been accusations about the current government are failing to enforce criminal behaviour that's directly tied down to the industry.
So to answer it for about 10 years or so Amsterdam had it working well in a fashion.
I was in Amsterdam back in June and talked to a couple girls about this, and they were all pissed off about what the current government was doing. They all said that they really liked how things were "before" (I didn't get details), but the current government was really wrecking their business (one gestured to the mostly empty streets outside) by trying to keep all the tourists away (cutting general tourism advertising and upping enforcement of nuisance laws on tourists) while closing windows and jacking up their costs.
The Netherlands has a legalized system, and though it was way better before there were still real problems with it. One issue is the fact that you need a permit and the police increased effort to go after prostitution without permits. But the fact is that the most vulnerable sex workers are the most likely to work without a permit and the police are absolutely not adept at handling that shit. There was also the ban on brothels. while true that some brothels were bad, a brothel was also a way for sex workers to unify and hold a stronger position. Violence against sex workers in brothels was way lower than violence against those working alone.
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The solution to bad regulations isn't no regulations. There are some pretty obvious public health concerns with prostitution at the very least.
For the most part, those concerns aren't addressed by regulation, but by education and assistance. Street work zones in the Netherlands provided free medical care, free condoms and free legal assistance.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding it of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
The solution to bad regulations isn't no regulations. There are some pretty obvious public health concerns with prostitution at the very least.
For the most part, those concerns aren't addressed by regulation, but by education and assistance. Street work zones in the Netherlands provided free medical care, free condoms and free legal assistance.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
In order to shift regulation enforcement to bureaucracy, you'll need a whole lot of infrastructure
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Are you thinking that brothel owners will require sexual favors of their workers? I think that does happen, at least in some contexts. By contrast, I was responding to the thought that a collateral effect of legalizing sex work would be non-sex-workers getting sex work demanded of them as an “extra” for the boss. I was noting that this doesn’t appear to happen very often with other personal services. A young woman stocking the shelves at your local Rite Aid is not normally required to also run personal errands for her boss, despite the fact that errands for money are perfectly legal.
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding it of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
It's an argument for regulation, not against sex work.
Certain kinds of activity which is appropriate for specific roles should not be generally demandable by an employer.
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Are you thinking that brothel owners will require sexual favors of their workers? I think that does happen, at least in some contexts. By contrast, I was responding to the thought that a collateral effect of legalizing sex work would be non-sex-workers getting sex work demanded of them as an “extra” for the boss. I was noting that this doesn’t appear to happen very often with other personal services. A young woman stocking the shelves at your local Rite Aid is not normally required to also run personal errands for her boss, despite the fact that errands for money are perfectly legal.
This really isn't very uncommon in certain environments. My dad did one-off favors throughout his career in the construction industry.
Well, currently, touching someone's butt is definitely a legal thing consenting adults can do. Sexual harassment in the workplace can also involve having one's butt grabbed without consent or have it demanded of someone inappropriately. Should we make all hand to butt contact illegal because it can be used as a tool for sexual harassment?
I personally thing that sex work should be legal and should be regulated. The regulations should be aimed at protecting the public health and at preventing exploitation of sex workers.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Sex workers should be licensed. This license will act as proof that the sex worker is following appropriate guidelines and grant the worker access to certain items.
Sex workers will have to be tested for STDs at least once every three months. This testing is paid for by the government.
Sex workers will be given free condoms and are required to use them when engaged in sex work.
Exploitation Prevent
The main goal here is to prevent exploitation due to power differences. When I use sex worker below, I mean all forms of sex work. For example:
Sex workers will be granted the same legal protections of any other profession. This includes discrimination, excessive hours, overtime, etc.
Sex work companies will not be allowed to provide housing for their workers.
All claims of rape shall be investigated fully.
All claims of assault shall be investigated fully.
No one who has been prosecuted for rape shall be allowed to work in the sex industry.
My biggest fear with legalization of sex work is that Silicon Valley will find a way to exploit sex workers. Can you imagine Uber, except for sex?
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Are you thinking that brothel owners will require sexual favors of their workers? I think that does happen, at least in some contexts. By contrast, I was responding to the thought that a collateral effect of legalizing sex work would be non-sex-workers getting sex work demanded of them as an “extra” for the boss. I was noting that this doesn’t appear to happen very often with other personal services. A young woman stocking the shelves at your local Rite Aid is not normally required to also run personal errands for her boss, despite the fact that errands for money are perfectly legal.
No real opinions to add, just some anecdotes that might be relevant:
I remember a story I read, possibly in an older incarnation of these forums, about someone that was an IT guy of a company who once had to go to his boss's home and install Warcraft 2 or 3 on the boss's kid's computer. I also ended up being the IT person at a small tutoring office despite it not being my real job there (though you can bet I put that on my resume when I was applying for jobs later). I suspect that doing things outside of official job descriptions is more common when the job isn't as well understood (e.g., if it was Warcraft 2 that was installed, a lot of places weren't using computers period yet) or lightly staffed (e.g. my tutoring center where there often only were 3 employees at the office). So Rite Aid being a corporation would be less likely request personal errands compared to a mom and pop shop IMO.
Also way back before the boom of amateur porn, I recall reading interviews with people involved in the physical media porn industry mentioning that it was common for experienced directors receiving blowjobs from the actresses. It wasn't required by seemed to be part of the culture of the industry.
I also recall reading that owners of brothels in Nevada will give out comp cards good for services to their friends, janitorial staff, etc. So there are instances of owners requiring sexual favors from their employees albeit not for the owners themselves.
I personally thing that sex work should be legal and should be regulated. The regulations should be aimed at protecting the public health and at preventing exploitation of sex workers.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Sex workers should be licensed. This license will act as proof that the sex worker is following appropriate guidelines and grant the worker access to certain items.
Sex workers will have to be tested for STDs at least once every three months. This testing is paid for by the government.
Sex workers will be given free condoms and are required to use them when engaged in sex work.
How about this instead:
Customers should be licensed and have to be tested for STIs at least once every three months, and the customers will be given free condoms and required to use them when soliciting (penetrative) sex work?
In other words, the laws you've proposed protect the customers much more than they do the workers, presume the workers are the primary disease vector rather than the customers, and put much more of the onus on the workers.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Some major things that have to be addressed is ensuring that sex work never becomes a requirement for anything else, and that sexual harassment laws are updated to deal with it.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Are you thinking that brothel owners will require sexual favors of their workers? I think that does happen, at least in some contexts. By contrast, I was responding to the thought that a collateral effect of legalizing sex work would be non-sex-workers getting sex work demanded of them as an “extra” for the boss. I was noting that this doesn’t appear to happen very often with other personal services. A young woman stocking the shelves at your local Rite Aid is not normally required to also run personal errands for her boss, despite the fact that errands for money are perfectly legal.
No real opinions to add, just some anecdotes that might be relevant:
I remember a story I read, possibly in an older incarnation of these forums, about someone that was an IT guy of a company who once had to go to his boss's home and install Warcraft 2 or 3 on the boss's kid's computer. I also ended up being the IT person at a small tutoring office despite it not being my real job there (though you can bet I put that on my resume when I was applying for jobs later). I suspect that doing things outside of official job descriptions is more common when the job isn't as well understood (e.g., if it was Warcraft 2 that was installed, a lot of places weren't using computers period yet) or lightly staffed (e.g. my tutoring center where there often only were 3 employees at the office). So Rite Aid being a corporation would be less likely request personal errands compared to a mom and pop shop IMO.
Also way back before the boom of amateur porn, I recall reading interviews with people involved in the physical media porn industry mentioning that it was common for experienced directors receiving blowjobs from the actresses. It wasn't required by seemed to be part of the culture of the industry.
I also recall reading that owners of brothels in Nevada will give out comp cards good for services to their friends, janitorial staff, etc. So there are instances of owners requiring sexual favors from their employees albeit not for the owners themselves.
Right but that's a brothel employee. If you read the comment chain the concern was for unrelated jobs.
I personally thing that sex work should be legal and should be regulated. The regulations should be aimed at protecting the public health and at preventing exploitation of sex workers.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Sex workers should be licensed. This license will act as proof that the sex worker is following appropriate guidelines and grant the worker access to certain items.
Sex workers will have to be tested for STDs at least once every three months. This testing is paid for by the government.
Sex workers will be given free condoms and are required to use them when engaged in sex work.
How about this instead:
Customers should be licensed and have to be tested for STIs at least once every three months, and the customers will be given free condoms and required to use them when soliciting (penetrative) sex work?
In other words, the laws you've proposed protect the customers much more than they do the workers, presume the workers are the primary disease vector rather than the customers, and put much more of the onus on the workers.
The onus is on the supplier. A butcher is expected to maintain a certain level of cleanliness and health in the running of his operation, with government provided health inspectors testing the facility to make sure it is not a danger to public safety. Why would a sex worker be any different?
And if what you propose were implemented, then you're just de facto making sex work illegal by going after the johns.
I personally thing that sex work should be legal and should be regulated. The regulations should be aimed at protecting the public health and at preventing exploitation of sex workers.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Sex workers should be licensed. This license will act as proof that the sex worker is following appropriate guidelines and grant the worker access to certain items.
Sex workers will have to be tested for STDs at least once every three months. This testing is paid for by the government.
Sex workers will be given free condoms and are required to use them when engaged in sex work.
How about this instead:
Customers should be licensed and have to be tested for STIs at least once every three months, and the customers will be given free condoms and required to use them when soliciting (penetrative) sex work?
In other words, the laws you've proposed protect the customers much more than they do the workers, presume the workers are the primary disease vector rather than the customers, and put much more of the onus on the workers.
Don't strict regulations specifically on the solicitors have many of the same problems as the "it's legal to sell, but not to buy" regime? That is, it still incentivizes illegal/exploitative sex work (because there is a market for people willing to do so illegally, since buying sex is not necessarily the kind of habit you do in a premeditated fashion) and it still exposes sex workers to a police force hostile to them and puts them at risk for discrimination from unrelated parties that want to avoid liability?
I think it should be legalized and the only real arguments against it are that it will be legalized in bad faith...
Well, I want it to be legalized in good faith, but even bad faith legalization is a step in the right direction - my main concern is that we can do something about all the pimps. I want there to always be serious criminal penalties for coercing a sex worker (of any sort) to engage with a client she or he does not want to
I personally thing that sex work should be legal and should be regulated. The regulations should be aimed at protecting the public health and at preventing exploitation of sex workers.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Sex workers should be licensed. This license will act as proof that the sex worker is following appropriate guidelines and grant the worker access to certain items.
Sex workers will have to be tested for STDs at least once every three months. This testing is paid for by the government.
Sex workers will be given free condoms and are required to use them when engaged in sex work.
How about this instead:
Customers should be licensed and have to be tested for STIs at least once every three months, and the customers will be given free condoms and required to use them when soliciting (penetrative) sex work?
In other words, the laws you've proposed protect the customers much more than they do the workers, presume the workers are the primary disease vector rather than the customers, and put much more of the onus on the workers.
The onus is on the supplier.
Usually. Not always. Try renting a car without a driver's license in the US (or any other vehicle requiring a specialized permit; eg an airplane). In some jurisdictions, you have to a license or permit to use a firearms range. Some day care centers require proof of vaccination.
Basically, if an unskilled or reckless customer could put life, health, or property at serious risk, it isn't beyond the pale for the supplier to require their customers to meet a minimal safety or licensing standard.
In any case, I'm not seriously suggesting that: rather, I am emphasizing how such regulatory schemes are based in, and promote, an idea that sex work is dirty - or, more precisely, that sex workers are dangerous for their clients, when the reality is the other way around.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The solution to bad regulations isn't no regulations. There are some pretty obvious public health concerns with prostitution at the very least.
For the most part, those concerns aren't addressed by regulation, but by education and assistance. Street work zones in the Netherlands provided free medical care, free condoms and free legal assistance.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
In order to shift regulation enforcement to bureaucracy, you'll need a whole lot of infrastructure
The cops don't check up on restaurants to see if they're following hygiene regulations. The existing bureaucratic infrastructure should be more than enough to handle whatever.
The reason why this usually falls to the police is because legalisation means sex work is a crime unless certain conditions are met. A restaurant with rats in the kitchen is not guilty of a crime, a sex worker without a license is. This is the problem with legalisation. The regulation in question isn't about hygiene standards, it's about saying when sex work is or isn't a crime.
Restaurants have licences, like a ton of them. It's weird to suggest otherwise.
Like, you need a business licence, a food service licence, and a liquor licence(if you like money) or you are breaking a law. And the people who serve the liquor need to be licenced too.
The solution to bad regulations isn't no regulations. There are some pretty obvious public health concerns with prostitution at the very least.
For the most part, those concerns aren't addressed by regulation, but by education and assistance. Street work zones in the Netherlands provided free medical care, free condoms and free legal assistance.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
In order to shift regulation enforcement to bureaucracy, you'll need a whole lot of infrastructure
The cops don't check up on restaurants to see if they're following hygiene regulations. The existing bureaucratic infrastructure should be more than enough to handle whatever.
The reason why this usually falls to the police is because legalisation means sex work is a crime unless certain conditions are met. A restaurant with rats in the kitchen is not guilty of a crime, a sex worker without a license is. This is the problem with legalisation. The regulation in question isn't about hygiene standards, it's about saying when sex work is or isn't a crime.
A restaurant without a license is guilty of a crime, and rats in the kitchen will cause the restaurant to lose it's license.
I get what Feral is saying, that I'm placing an onus on sex workers. And I agree with it, because I think that's where the onus needs to be. The regulation in question is about protecting public health while giving a legal path for consensual paid sex.
The solution to bad regulations isn't no regulations. There are some pretty obvious public health concerns with prostitution at the very least.
For the most part, those concerns aren't addressed by regulation, but by education and assistance. Street work zones in the Netherlands provided free medical care, free condoms and free legal assistance.
The attached images in the second tweet seem pertinent to this discussion.
A lot of industries would love to be unregulated. We have many threads about the result.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
In order to shift regulation enforcement to bureaucracy, you'll need a whole lot of infrastructure
The cops don't check up on restaurants to see if they're following hygiene regulations. The existing bureaucratic infrastructure should be more than enough to handle whatever.
The reason why this usually falls to the police is because legalisation means sex work is a crime unless certain conditions are met. A restaurant with rats in the kitchen is not guilty of a crime, a sex worker without a license is. This is the problem with legalisation. The regulation in question isn't about hygiene standards, it's about saying when sex work is or isn't a crime.
Um, food safety violations can carry criminal penalties.
Beyond that, a sex worker's job requires intimate physical contact. Most jobs that involve intimate physical contact - mostly healthcare - require licensure and regulation. Massage therapists require regulation in 45 states.
When these entities violate regulatory standards, they are fined and punished according to preset guidelines. Severe noncompliance can result in criminal charges. The most heinous cases involve police.
I don't see that infrastructure in existence for sex work. Where are the guidelines? What agency grants permits? Who does inspection and auditing under what authority? Without that stuff in place, it's no wonder that every violation would be handled by police.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
I've found that when morality is tossed around in this conversation it usually means control of women's choices or agency over their own bodies, which makes me really hesitant to listen to any argument built around such a framework.
A) Sex work is immoral
(at least, more immoral than any other kind of work)
(Specifically, that it's sex work *itself* that destroys lives, and not the prohibitions and taboos that we've constructed around it)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd be a lot more receptive to this argument if it didn't mean telling labor that it doesn't know what's best for it, again, and almost certainly maintaining the toxic relationship between sex workers and police
Its the last part that is the worst part. Going to strip club? Fine. Watching a Porn movie? Fine. Paying the same Stripper turned porn star for sex? Wrong. Even though she gives consent in all three cases.
Honestly, when you consider how much of our society allows in borderline sex work its kind of amazing.
I mean who here really thinks the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is really trying to sell swimsuits? Playboy Model posing nude isn't sex work? Sorry to tell you but they played a huge part in my sex life growing up. They sell both things knowing what their actual use will be.
And its not like anybody is fooled by high fashion models being half naked in many shots. If that isn't trying to sell the sex appeal in conjunction with the clothes aka sex sells aka selling sex.
I mean, "sex work is immoral" seems like the easiest of lifts here. You know "sex is a sacred act between and husband and wife joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of god" or whatever. Or pick some other religious or non-religious moral system, same thing.
It's just that it doesn't fucking matter. I mean, Jehovah's Witnesseses think giving blood is immoral. We just don't care that they think that.
Sure, your moral system considers it wrong. That's fine. Doesn't matter with respect to the law.
I have some news for you about how stigmatized these things are
But not in a legal sense and honestly that's where it matters.
I think you will find that a lot of people who think sex work is immoral also think those things are immoral or at the least take a dim view of them.
eg - I would not say most of society is kind to porn stars either, even though what they do is actually legal.
but you were talking about how sex work is immoral and people viewing it as a character flaw
We care a bit. Jehovah's witnesses get special considerations for surgeries and stuff because of the overarching principles of autonomy and consent. We also make laws based on competing moral codes - like with gambling.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nah. We accommodate them if possible. In the same way you don't have to have sex with a sex worker if you don't want to. Nobody is making blood transfusions illegal though.
This accommodation is the law though, and it is basically regulation. We are monitored to ensure these accommodations are met, and this is enforced via the legal system when necessary.
This is more of a modification rather than a refutation of your argument.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Regulation, when created in good faith, protects workers and communities from harmful practices and denial of basic services.
I really don't want to see what happens with unregulated megacorp sex work. Unpaid internships are bad enough as is.
I would like your reasoning behind both of those assertions, please, as they're pretty weighty, and I don't want to make assumptions about how you arrived at those conclusions.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Only noticed this thread now but there's been a recent example of even an established porn site engaging in shady and criminal activity that's being treated as trafficking.
The site produced a lot of content over the years to put it mildly which would have given cover for videos produced from these 22 women. While they do have a chance to get compensation for harm done with the civil suit, they've definitely been hurt by the ordeal.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
The Netherlands has a legalized system, and though it was way better before there were still real problems with it. One issue is the fact that you need a permit and the police increased effort to go after prostitution without permits. But the fact is that the most vulnerable sex workers are the most likely to work without a permit and the police are absolutely not adept at handling that shit. There was also the ban on brothels. while true that some brothels were bad, a brothel was also a way for sex workers to unify and hold a stronger position. Violence against sex workers in brothels was way lower than violence against those working alone.
Nobody needs a world where the boss can legally fire you for not having sex with them.
Yeah part of the problem is that enforcement of regulation usually falls to the police or some discount-police, and they suck. If the police are good for anything, it's catching criminals and shit, not checking if you're following all the regulations.
This point is often made in this context—and there is a well-regarded article in Ethics I think which makes basically this argument against prostitution and which is often taught—but idk how true it is. It seems to tacitly assume that any legal activity is one that workers will then be made to do by bosses demanding it of them.
But many personal services are legal, such as massages, child supervision, and running errands, yet it is not a standardized part of even low wage unskilled work that in addition to whatever else, workers must also pick up their bosses dry cleaning, watch their kids, and give them back rubs. There are a variety of reasons I can imagine for why this is, though I don’t really know—but regardless of why, it does seem true that jobs where workers perform personal services for their boss are much more the exception than the rule, and that this is true despite the fact that those services are all legal to offer in exchange for money.
In order to shift regulation enforcement to bureaucracy, you'll need a whole lot of infrastructure
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you are a masseuse, presumably, the owner of Physical Therapy, Inc., could schedule an appointment?
If you are working as a teacher at a day care center, presumably, the owner of LearningKids could enroll their own child?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Are you thinking that brothel owners will require sexual favors of their workers? I think that does happen, at least in some contexts. By contrast, I was responding to the thought that a collateral effect of legalizing sex work would be non-sex-workers getting sex work demanded of them as an “extra” for the boss. I was noting that this doesn’t appear to happen very often with other personal services. A young woman stocking the shelves at your local Rite Aid is not normally required to also run personal errands for her boss, despite the fact that errands for money are perfectly legal.
It's an argument for regulation, not against sex work.
Certain kinds of activity which is appropriate for specific roles should not be generally demandable by an employer.
This really isn't very uncommon in certain environments. My dad did one-off favors throughout his career in the construction industry.
Public Health
The main goal here is to prevent the spread of STDs. When I use sex worker below, I mean "full service".
Exploitation Prevent
The main goal here is to prevent exploitation due to power differences. When I use sex worker below, I mean all forms of sex work. For example:
My biggest fear with legalization of sex work is that Silicon Valley will find a way to exploit sex workers. Can you imagine Uber, except for sex?
It's called Tinder.
No real opinions to add, just some anecdotes that might be relevant:
I remember a story I read, possibly in an older incarnation of these forums, about someone that was an IT guy of a company who once had to go to his boss's home and install Warcraft 2 or 3 on the boss's kid's computer. I also ended up being the IT person at a small tutoring office despite it not being my real job there (though you can bet I put that on my resume when I was applying for jobs later). I suspect that doing things outside of official job descriptions is more common when the job isn't as well understood (e.g., if it was Warcraft 2 that was installed, a lot of places weren't using computers period yet) or lightly staffed (e.g. my tutoring center where there often only were 3 employees at the office). So Rite Aid being a corporation would be less likely request personal errands compared to a mom and pop shop IMO.
Also way back before the boom of amateur porn, I recall reading interviews with people involved in the physical media porn industry mentioning that it was common for experienced directors receiving blowjobs from the actresses. It wasn't required by seemed to be part of the culture of the industry.
I also recall reading that owners of brothels in Nevada will give out comp cards good for services to their friends, janitorial staff, etc. So there are instances of owners requiring sexual favors from their employees albeit not for the owners themselves.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
How about this instead:
Customers should be licensed and have to be tested for STIs at least once every three months, and the customers will be given free condoms and required to use them when soliciting (penetrative) sex work?
In other words, the laws you've proposed protect the customers much more than they do the workers, presume the workers are the primary disease vector rather than the customers, and put much more of the onus on the workers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Right but that's a brothel employee. If you read the comment chain the concern was for unrelated jobs.
The onus is on the supplier. A butcher is expected to maintain a certain level of cleanliness and health in the running of his operation, with government provided health inspectors testing the facility to make sure it is not a danger to public safety. Why would a sex worker be any different?
And if what you propose were implemented, then you're just de facto making sex work illegal by going after the johns.
Don't strict regulations specifically on the solicitors have many of the same problems as the "it's legal to sell, but not to buy" regime? That is, it still incentivizes illegal/exploitative sex work (because there is a market for people willing to do so illegally, since buying sex is not necessarily the kind of habit you do in a premeditated fashion) and it still exposes sex workers to a police force hostile to them and puts them at risk for discrimination from unrelated parties that want to avoid liability?
Well, I want it to be legalized in good faith, but even bad faith legalization is a step in the right direction - my main concern is that we can do something about all the pimps. I want there to always be serious criminal penalties for coercing a sex worker (of any sort) to engage with a client she or he does not want to
Usually. Not always. Try renting a car without a driver's license in the US (or any other vehicle requiring a specialized permit; eg an airplane). In some jurisdictions, you have to a license or permit to use a firearms range. Some day care centers require proof of vaccination.
Basically, if an unskilled or reckless customer could put life, health, or property at serious risk, it isn't beyond the pale for the supplier to require their customers to meet a minimal safety or licensing standard.
In any case, I'm not seriously suggesting that: rather, I am emphasizing how such regulatory schemes are based in, and promote, an idea that sex work is dirty - or, more precisely, that sex workers are dangerous for their clients, when the reality is the other way around.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The cops don't check up on restaurants to see if they're following hygiene regulations. The existing bureaucratic infrastructure should be more than enough to handle whatever.
The reason why this usually falls to the police is because legalisation means sex work is a crime unless certain conditions are met. A restaurant with rats in the kitchen is not guilty of a crime, a sex worker without a license is. This is the problem with legalisation. The regulation in question isn't about hygiene standards, it's about saying when sex work is or isn't a crime.
Like, you need a business licence, a food service licence, and a liquor licence(if you like money) or you are breaking a law. And the people who serve the liquor need to be licenced too.
Is it a civil or criminal matter though?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
A restaurant without a license is guilty of a crime, and rats in the kitchen will cause the restaurant to lose it's license.
I get what Feral is saying, that I'm placing an onus on sex workers. And I agree with it, because I think that's where the onus needs to be. The regulation in question is about protecting public health while giving a legal path for consensual paid sex.
I don't fully understand this question, but licences are mostly issued by the state or city governments.
Um, food safety violations can carry criminal penalties.
Beyond that, a sex worker's job requires intimate physical contact. Most jobs that involve intimate physical contact - mostly healthcare - require licensure and regulation. Massage therapists require regulation in 45 states.
When these entities violate regulatory standards, they are fined and punished according to preset guidelines. Severe noncompliance can result in criminal charges. The most heinous cases involve police.
I don't see that infrastructure in existence for sex work. Where are the guidelines? What agency grants permits? Who does inspection and auditing under what authority? Without that stuff in place, it's no wonder that every violation would be handled by police.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.