What is the motivation for criminalizing purchase (but not sale) of sex, a la the Nordic model? I mean, outside of being squicked out by Johns, which I find eh. You’d think that if the motivation for allowing prostitution involves preserving a livelihood for women who need it / where it suits them, then that livelihood is threatened by suppressing the demand side coming from Johns. Is there some way that asymmetric sanctions help with trafficking or whatnot? Curious here.
Also: do authorities in jurisdictions following the Nordic model actually make affirmative efforts to bust Johns? How does that work in practice?
As a philosophical matter, I’m pro sex work and anti-stigma. But those arguments are all kind of tired and obvious, and I also think this is an area where the right law depends more directly on its actual consequences out there in the empirical world.
The idea is that sex workers are victims, and as such the punishment of sex work should fall on the purchasers. Needless to say, it's gooseshit from a few angles - the reality is that not all (or even most) sex workers are victims (and treating them as such removes their agency), and on a practical level, it winds up still hurting sex workers and keeping them on the fringes.
The idea you've described as "sex workers are victims" seems incomplete to me. What are sex workers victims of or said to be victims of?
Of being involved in sex work. One of the things that you see a lot of when discussing sex work is the idea that sex workers are unwilling, because people do not want to deal with the ramifications of sex workers choosing the be such, for numerous reasons - the job is flexible, it pays well to give economic stability, the sex worker genuinely enjoys sex, etc.
This seems like such a dumb way of making the argument, though. It doesn't need to be the case that all sex workers need to be victims of sex work (whatever that means--the harm is still undefined) to make the argument that the harms caused by or experienced during sex work aren't worth the value the option provides to some people. I realize that it's not your argument, so asking you for a defense probably isn't fair, but maybe you've encountered a version of it that at least appears more well-founded than the version you've sketched out here.
The problem is that the argument for criminalization of sex work is itself broken. A lot of what makes sex work dangerous stems from it being on the fringes, without legal protection. And a lot of sex workers are doing so of their own volition. Faced with that, the argument naturally falls apart.
It's funny here cause if we were talking about like literally any other job, you wouldn't be using near this loose a definition of voluntary. We don't talk about the working poor suffering under exploitative labour practices in, say, the service industry as being all that "voluntary".
We don't exactly condemn a person who takes a bad job to gain some economic stability as being morally unfit, either. The reality is that quite a few sex workers choose it because it's in many ways a better job than the other alternatives - better pay, better scheduling, and more control. (Yes, really. Especially today, a lot of sex workers have control over who their clients are, how they meet, etc.) For members of marginalized communities, sex work can mean economic stability.
And again, a lot of the exploitative practices aren't part of the industry, but exist because of how we treat sex work as a society.
That wasn't the question though. The question was over definitions of voluntary.
The point is that you're making an argument that sex work is intrinsically exploitative, but not really backing it up. A lot of the exploitative aspects are less intrinsic, and more due to issues with how society and the law treats sex work. And part of that is how we as a culture view sex work - and for some reason, the idea that sex workers may very well choose to be such of their own volition causes a lot of people to paradigm shift without engaging the clutch.
No, I'm not. That's the argument you wanna beat on. There's a difference.
I'm saying that your definition of voluntary here is vastly different then the one you'd use in any other situation. We don't harp on about about how people working 3 service jobs with constantly shifting schedules do so voluntarily to fight against criticism of their conditions. Because we understand the coercive force of staving to death because you are too poor.
Okay, I'm going to make the argument you're asking for.
Sex work cannot be stamped out and any attempts to do so will make it more dangerous and unsavory. Sex work is a legitimate occupation. Sex work is not an especial form of service work save that it is taboo. Sex work draws from the same pool of people as the other service industries. The service sector would continue to exist under any conceivable economic system.
Full legalization, without permits or any other similar scheme, is necessary to prevent the powers that be from raping, murdering, and extorting sex workers. Full legalization is desirable.
Wait a minute. You can’t even give haircuts without a permit. Why shouldn’t sex workers be required to get one?
Well the US probably requires way too much liscencing in general but for sex work idk.
A clean bill of health within a certain date range is reasonable.
That and just a general test about sex education and spotting danger. Also how to contact and approach emergency services in tense situations.
The only way they're not interchangeable is if you attach extra moral weight to sex as an act. Which is fine on a subjective level, no one is asking you to go be a sex worker.
If I wanted to lump together an electrician's risk of being electrocuted with a sanitation workers risk of being crushed when discussing worker risk you wouldn't blink though.
Don't presume to state my position for me, thank you. I would blink if you lumped together those risks in order to argue that electricians need to wear steel-toed boots because steel-toed boots are effective safety equipment for sanitation workers, who are at risk of being crushed like electricians are at risk of being electrocuted.
This is getting to be some serious bullshit dude. Like a page ago you criticized me when I said that sex workers, like any industry, should have regulations that are tailored to their business as prudence dictates but aren't any more materially burdensome.
Right, because my perspective is that sex work is not any other industry, and the (collection of) features that distinguish it from other kinds of work make it, particularly under conditions of capitalism and patriarchy, especially challenging and maybe impossible to regulate effectively.
How many patients would make an offer to their doctor or nurse, "how about I throw in an extra $100 and you take care of me with your bare hands"?
If you don't think people try to get health care workers to do illegal things all the time, well buddy
If I wanted to claim that people don't "try to get health care workers to do illegal things all the time", then I would have used those words. My point is that it's reasonably foreseeable that sex workers would be subject to attempts at economic coercion regarding the use or non-use of protective gear that doesn't have an equivalent in medicine.
Its hard to engage with this much special pleading. I mean really. People try to get nurses to ignore drug regulations that are.....wait for it.....safety measures all the time.
A lot of your complaints boil down to "but then we'd need some kind of enforcement mechanism".
You've almost managed to capture my point, so we're getting somewhere. A lot of my "complaints" boil down to "here's a foreseeable problem that a regulatory framework would need to be prepared for, how could it be addressed?" to which the answer, if I get one, is "we'll deal with it like we deal with this other kind of problem" to which my rebuttal is "that's not the same problem or the same context, so I doubt you can just transplant the solution from one context to another and expect it to work."
In the examples we're looking at now, I suggested that sex work has unique risks related to exposure or potential exposure to infectious material. Someone suggested that hospital workers are also subject to some exposure risks. I expressed doubt that hospital workers would be subject to the same forms of economic coercion to dispense with safety equipment that sex workers could be expected to face. The response to this is that hospital workers have to deal with pressure to violate other safety standards, but the obvious difference between ignoring drug regulations and dispensing with a condom is that a nurse won't pick up an infection from a patient due to ignoring drug regulations. Another important difference is that a nurse is typically not directly reliant on a patient for pay in the way that a sex worker is reliant on their client.
It makes me sad to think that this is probably going to come across as more special pleading.
Your entire argument that sex work is somehow special labor boils down to "its not literally like some other kind of job in every particular no matter how irrelevant". Its silly, useless, and pretty obviously in service of some other belief or priority.
There's nothing particularly special about risking a disease in your job. My wife works with sick people every day and has laws that protect her from catching things and has to deal with pressures to violate those laws. You think a john who doesn't want to wear a rubber is bad? Let me introduce you to nonverbal dementia patients during a viral outbreak.
Sex workers have good reason to be skeptical of regulations, and we need to respect that.
I respect their skepticism. I'm not sure I would respect an outright refusal of regulation, because no regulations just opens the door to other kinds of abuse (or even the same abuse as that which comes with bad regulations). What I think would absolutely have to happen, though, is sex workers being closely involved in coming up with the regulations.
But that doesn't mean that every opinion sex workers have about regulations is correct. If you asked construction workers in the 50s to come up with Job Site regulations you wouldn't have everyone wearing hard hats, and double checked harnesses, and taking compulsory breaks while driving machinery etc.
The worker in an industry may indeed have in depth knowledge of the problems of the industry, but they don't necessarily have the right solutions, because it is rare that any industry requires an understanding of societal risk and macroeconomic factors.
Also, my problem is not with people deciding to do sex work for money. If supply and demand were better matched, and purchasers had a keen sense for 'this person is dying of despair being forced to do this because she has been kidnapped from her family' then I'd say that you could allow more 'freedom' in where sex work can be done etc. But neither of these things are true, and 'complete legalization' of sex work will without question lead to women being forced to do it.
The main area of mismatch between supply/demand is for underaged girls and foreigners who were smuggled into the country. Mainly because the legal supply will always be zero. You can never get rid of the black market completely, but the current status quo normalizes its existence. If a consenting adult woman wants to work as a sex worker without getting arrested, then her only option is to rely on the seedier parts of the internet where she can post anonymously. By making those seedier parts of the internet more mainstream, we make it easier for the trafficked people to slip through. When you take away the criminalization aspect, then supply goes up considerably, because people are more willing to work in an industry where they won't be arrested. This also means less demand for anonymous sites with no verification,
Regulations are needed to ensure that everyone who works in the industry -- especially those who advertise -- are of legal status. But the same is true for every other type of job. Regulations beyond that are a different matter.
Is it? Or is that merely a response to the demand exceeding the supply?
My department involves wearing a lot of hats, but workplace safety is one thing that we focus on. Are machine guards installed and being used properly? Are fire exits clear of blockage, and properly lit? Do we have enough AEDs at the properties, and do staff know how to use them? Etc, etc, the list goes on seemingly forever.
I don't see how well thought out and in good faith regulation of sex work need be any different. Yes, there is a history of bullshit ranging from misguided to malicious, but that doesn't have to be the case innately.
Standardized STI screening/checkups (with commiserate governmental requirements that medical services are available and affordable), safety training where appropriate depending on the activities the sex worker will be offering/performing, inspection of gear to be used for BDSM play, etc. I'm envisioning something more akin to the regulations and standards set for a variety of professions, again depending on what someone wishes to do in the line of work. We don't have the exact same guidelines for a variety of professions with elements of danger to them, whether it's a Cirque du Soleil performer (rigging/rope work/etc), or a tattoo artist (handling of bodily fluids), etc, but we manage to, as a society, strive to set a reasonable bottom bar of expectations for safety, cleanliness, skill, and other elements.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see why would couldn't set standards for potential clients as well. If I go into a climbing gym, I'm expected to properly use the safety equipment provided, and can be asked to leave if I fail to do so.
Now, is this applicable to every potential sex worker everywhere ever? No! Of course not! I doubt many individuals or small groups are going to have access to the exact same resources as a massive corporation, or even a medium one, but just because laws have been written shittily and antagonistically in the past doesn't mean it's impossible. It'd likely require former and active sex workers to be involved in crafting them. It'd involve actual good faith efforts to make the profession safer, particularly for the workers. Checks and balances against potential for abuse, by owners of facilities, by clients, by law enforcement, and more. And I recognize that there are groups who advocate on the matter with differing opinions on how to best improve those conditions, sometimes in mutually exclusive ways (we're seeing it in this thread).
This is shit that dates back long before anyone here was born, and will likely persist beyond most of us, so don't get me wrong, or think that I expect to have the sex trade cleaned up by dinner time. It may be overly idealistic (perhaps even naive), but I do think it's possible for sex work to be regulated in reasonable ways, like most other professions. I FULLY recognize that the USA's puritanical standards around sex will make this even more of an uphill climb than necessary. I wouldn't dream of claiming that Canada has it all perfectly settled, just so we're clear. I do think it's possible to improve upon the situation, but there are certainly reasons for a healthy skepticism, and I have neither the historical context, direct work experience, or legal grounding to start crafting US applicable legislation on any matter, let alone one as complicated as this.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Your entire argument that sex work is somehow special labor boils down to "its not literally like some other kind of job in every particular no matter how irrelevant". Its silly, useless, and pretty obviously in service of some other belief or priority.
There's nothing particularly special about risking a disease in your job. My wife works with sick people every day and has laws that protect her from catching things and has to deal with pressures to violate those laws. You think a john who doesn't want to wear a rubber is bad? Let me introduce you to nonverbal dementia patients during a viral outbreak.
Your argument that sex work isn't special involves declaring every difference, regardless of its practical implications, irrelevant, as long as there is some vaguely comparable aspect to work in another sector. Your argument that sex work isn't special also involves ignoring the idea that it isn't one specific factor or feature that makes sex work special, it's the particular combination of factors. Yes, a dementia patient during a viral outbreak might present certain challenges for a nurse to deal with, but as I've pointed out before, a nurse isn't going to be paid by that dementia patient the way a sex worker would likely be paid by a client. There's a totally different power dynamic, but I guess that's irrelevant somehow.
I don't see how well thought out and in good faith regulation of sex work need be any different. Yes, there is a history of bullshit ranging from misguided to malicious, but that doesn't have to be the case innately.
Maybe the history of bullshit emerged because it does have to be the case innately. When you read a comment about problems with trafficking in the legalized prostitution industry in the Netherlands to the effect of "This problem existed for decades, but is proving devious to fight." or "I would guess there would be more action if a better path was clear, but no real solution seems forthcoming." what are the countervailing considerations that give you confidence that this is a doable thing?
This is what I'm talking about! Unless someone can come up with another non sex industry job that's exactly the same you'll claim its special in some way that's truly unique, which is stupid. Every job has something about it that's different than anyone else has to deal with. That doesn't mean we have to regard them as fundamentally different. They have some unique particularities and we move on with our day.
You haven't identified anything about sex work that's actually reason for pause. "Its a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" isn't even vaguely special to begin with. I mean shit, you're describing house keeping there.
And my example isn't a different power dynamic anyway, unless you ignore the role of a patient's happiness in a health care worker keeping their job.
Its pretty obvious at this point this is rooted in a problem with the labor itself, couched in terms of concern. This is a stupid tangent that's eaten up the thread for more than enough time so I'll leave it there.
This is what I'm talking about! Unless someone can come up with another non sex industry job that's exactly the same you'll claim its special in some way that's truly unique, which is stupid. Every job has something about it that's different than anyone else has to deal with. That doesn't mean we have to regard them as fundamentally different. They have some unique particularities and we move on with our day.
You haven't identified anything about sex work that's actually reason for pause. "Its a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" isn't even vaguely special to begin with. I mean shit, you're describing house keeping there.
And that would be a compelling argument if my argument was that sex work is special because its "a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" but I've clearly identified other aspects of sex work that make it different from house keeping. Your tendency to put phrases in quotes as though they are things I've said, when my actual words are right there for you to quote if you care about representing my views correctly, is pretty irritating.
And my example isn't a different power dynamic anyway, unless you ignore the role of a patient's happiness in a health care worker keeping their job.
Its pretty obvious at this point this is rooted in a problem with the labor itself, couched in terms of concern. This is a stupid tangent that's eaten up the thread for more than enough time so I'll leave it there.
That is probably for the best because my brain is going to start trying to flee my skull if I have to keep trying to understand how you could actually believe or argue that the power dynamic between a nurse and a nonverbal dementia patient "isn't a different power dynamic" than the power dynamic between a sex worker and a client.
This is what I'm talking about! Unless someone can come up with another non sex industry job that's exactly the same you'll claim its special in some way that's truly unique, which is stupid. Every job has something about it that's different than anyone else has to deal with. That doesn't mean we have to regard them as fundamentally different. They have some unique particularities and we move on with our day.
You haven't identified anything about sex work that's actually reason for pause. "Its a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" isn't even vaguely special to begin with. I mean shit, you're describing house keeping there.
And that would be a compelling argument if my argument was that sex work is special because its "a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" but I've clearly identified other aspects of sex work that make it different from house keeping. Your tendency to put phrases in quotes as though they are things I've said, when my actual words are right there for you to quote if you care about representing my views correctly, is pretty irritating.
And my example isn't a different power dynamic anyway, unless you ignore the role of a patient's happiness in a health care worker keeping their job.
Its pretty obvious at this point this is rooted in a problem with the labor itself, couched in terms of concern. This is a stupid tangent that's eaten up the thread for more than enough time so I'll leave it there.
That is probably for the best because my brain is going to start trying to flee my skull if I have to keep trying to understand how you could actually believe or argue that the power dynamic between a nurse and a nonverbal dementia patient "isn't a different power dynamic" than the power dynamic between a sex worker and a client.
Why a nonverbal dementia patient? Why not an angry football player?
Making sex work legal, allows for the worker to have more power because they don't need to take as many risks, and can take better precautions, and be more selective with clients, than theyotherise would.
You claim that you have identified somethig unique about sex work, but you have not made an actual case for why this is so.
+3
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The thread may have moved on but of the various full service sex workers and members of their family that I know personally they all, to a woman, despise the Nordic model. Not least of which because of how it dismisses and diminishes their life choices and agency.
The existing Australian or even better Kiwi models are generally considered to be the best options.
The reply all podcast did an episode about Craigslist getting shutdown and it was very interesting given the knock on effects that the economist highlighted and the obvious anti-sex feminism of the proponents of the shutdown of Craigslist expounded.
The Nordic models are based on a premise that sex work is a social ill and should be eliminated, but it is unjust to do so in a way that punishes sex workers themselves, so we should punish the demand instead.
That's why I think it is a good fit for underage prostitution but not for adult prostitution.
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 thread may have moved on but of the various full service sex workers and members of their family that I know personally they all, to a woman, despise the Nordic model. Not least of which because of how it dismisses and diminishes their life choices and agency.
The existing Australian or even better Kiwi models are generally considered to be the best options.
The reply all podcast did an episode about Craigslist getting shutdown and it was very interesting given the knock on effects that the economist highlighted and the obvious anti-sex feminism of the proponents of the shutdown of Craigslist expounded.
FOSTA/SESTA is a massive clusterfuck that is going to get sex workers killed. It has destroyed institutional knowledge that protected sex workers, removed tools that they have used to protect themselves.
The thread may have moved on but of the various full service sex workers and members of their family that I know personally they all, to a woman, despise the Nordic model. Not least of which because of how it dismisses and diminishes their life choices and agency.
The existing Australian or even better Kiwi models are generally considered to be the best options.
The reply all podcast did an episode about Craigslist getting shutdown and it was very interesting given the knock on effects that the economist highlighted and the obvious anti-sex feminism of the proponents of the shutdown of Craigslist expounded.
FOSTA/SESTA is a massive clusterfuck that is going to get sex workers killed. It has destroyed institutional knowledge that protected sex workers, removed tools that they have used to protect themselves.
And part of me worries that this is working as intended.
Nye County lawmakers on Tuesday revoked Assembly candidate Dennis Hof’s license at the Love Ranch after the brothel kingpin failed to apply for renewal and pay fees on time.
It’s the first time Nye County has permanently yanked a brothel license in the decade Commissioner Lorinda Wichman has served the county. Wichman, who chairs the county’s Licensing and Liquor Board, said Hof continues to violate county rules and disregard authority.
“I get the distinct impression that Mr. Hof believes the laws don’t apply to him,” Wichman said.
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.
Posts
That and just a general test about sex education and spotting danger. Also how to contact and approach emergency services in tense situations.
You've almost managed to capture my point, so we're getting somewhere. A lot of my "complaints" boil down to "here's a foreseeable problem that a regulatory framework would need to be prepared for, how could it be addressed?" to which the answer, if I get one, is "we'll deal with it like we deal with this other kind of problem" to which my rebuttal is "that's not the same problem or the same context, so I doubt you can just transplant the solution from one context to another and expect it to work."
In the examples we're looking at now, I suggested that sex work has unique risks related to exposure or potential exposure to infectious material. Someone suggested that hospital workers are also subject to some exposure risks. I expressed doubt that hospital workers would be subject to the same forms of economic coercion to dispense with safety equipment that sex workers could be expected to face. The response to this is that hospital workers have to deal with pressure to violate other safety standards, but the obvious difference between ignoring drug regulations and dispensing with a condom is that a nurse won't pick up an infection from a patient due to ignoring drug regulations. Another important difference is that a nurse is typically not directly reliant on a patient for pay in the way that a sex worker is reliant on their client.
It makes me sad to think that this is probably going to come across as more special pleading.
There's nothing particularly special about risking a disease in your job. My wife works with sick people every day and has laws that protect her from catching things and has to deal with pressures to violate those laws. You think a john who doesn't want to wear a rubber is bad? Let me introduce you to nonverbal dementia patients during a viral outbreak.
Is it? Or is that merely a response to the demand exceeding the supply?
I don't see how well thought out and in good faith regulation of sex work need be any different. Yes, there is a history of bullshit ranging from misguided to malicious, but that doesn't have to be the case innately.
Standardized STI screening/checkups (with commiserate governmental requirements that medical services are available and affordable), safety training where appropriate depending on the activities the sex worker will be offering/performing, inspection of gear to be used for BDSM play, etc. I'm envisioning something more akin to the regulations and standards set for a variety of professions, again depending on what someone wishes to do in the line of work. We don't have the exact same guidelines for a variety of professions with elements of danger to them, whether it's a Cirque du Soleil performer (rigging/rope work/etc), or a tattoo artist (handling of bodily fluids), etc, but we manage to, as a society, strive to set a reasonable bottom bar of expectations for safety, cleanliness, skill, and other elements.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see why would couldn't set standards for potential clients as well. If I go into a climbing gym, I'm expected to properly use the safety equipment provided, and can be asked to leave if I fail to do so.
Now, is this applicable to every potential sex worker everywhere ever? No! Of course not! I doubt many individuals or small groups are going to have access to the exact same resources as a massive corporation, or even a medium one, but just because laws have been written shittily and antagonistically in the past doesn't mean it's impossible. It'd likely require former and active sex workers to be involved in crafting them. It'd involve actual good faith efforts to make the profession safer, particularly for the workers. Checks and balances against potential for abuse, by owners of facilities, by clients, by law enforcement, and more. And I recognize that there are groups who advocate on the matter with differing opinions on how to best improve those conditions, sometimes in mutually exclusive ways (we're seeing it in this thread).
This is shit that dates back long before anyone here was born, and will likely persist beyond most of us, so don't get me wrong, or think that I expect to have the sex trade cleaned up by dinner time. It may be overly idealistic (perhaps even naive), but I do think it's possible for sex work to be regulated in reasonable ways, like most other professions. I FULLY recognize that the USA's puritanical standards around sex will make this even more of an uphill climb than necessary. I wouldn't dream of claiming that Canada has it all perfectly settled, just so we're clear. I do think it's possible to improve upon the situation, but there are certainly reasons for a healthy skepticism, and I have neither the historical context, direct work experience, or legal grounding to start crafting US applicable legislation on any matter, let alone one as complicated as this.
Your argument that sex work isn't special involves declaring every difference, regardless of its practical implications, irrelevant, as long as there is some vaguely comparable aspect to work in another sector. Your argument that sex work isn't special also involves ignoring the idea that it isn't one specific factor or feature that makes sex work special, it's the particular combination of factors. Yes, a dementia patient during a viral outbreak might present certain challenges for a nurse to deal with, but as I've pointed out before, a nurse isn't going to be paid by that dementia patient the way a sex worker would likely be paid by a client. There's a totally different power dynamic, but I guess that's irrelevant somehow.
Maybe the history of bullshit emerged because it does have to be the case innately. When you read a comment about problems with trafficking in the legalized prostitution industry in the Netherlands to the effect of "This problem existed for decades, but is proving devious to fight." or "I would guess there would be more action if a better path was clear, but no real solution seems forthcoming." what are the countervailing considerations that give you confidence that this is a doable thing?
You haven't identified anything about sex work that's actually reason for pause. "Its a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" isn't even vaguely special to begin with. I mean shit, you're describing house keeping there.
And my example isn't a different power dynamic anyway, unless you ignore the role of a patient's happiness in a health care worker keeping their job.
Its pretty obvious at this point this is rooted in a problem with the labor itself, couched in terms of concern. This is a stupid tangent that's eaten up the thread for more than enough time so I'll leave it there.
And that would be a compelling argument if my argument was that sex work is special because its "a service industry job where you work directly with a client who might pressure you into doing unsafe things" but I've clearly identified other aspects of sex work that make it different from house keeping. Your tendency to put phrases in quotes as though they are things I've said, when my actual words are right there for you to quote if you care about representing my views correctly, is pretty irritating.
That is probably for the best because my brain is going to start trying to flee my skull if I have to keep trying to understand how you could actually believe or argue that the power dynamic between a nurse and a nonverbal dementia patient "isn't a different power dynamic" than the power dynamic between a sex worker and a client.
Making sex work legal, allows for the worker to have more power because they don't need to take as many risks, and can take better precautions, and be more selective with clients, than theyotherise would.
You claim that you have identified somethig unique about sex work, but you have not made an actual case for why this is so.
The existing Australian or even better Kiwi models are generally considered to be the best options.
The reply all podcast did an episode about Craigslist getting shutdown and it was very interesting given the knock on effects that the economist highlighted and the obvious anti-sex feminism of the proponents of the shutdown of Craigslist expounded.
That's why I think it is a good fit for underage prostitution but not for adult prostitution.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
FOSTA/SESTA is a massive clusterfuck that is going to get sex workers killed. It has destroyed institutional knowledge that protected sex workers, removed tools that they have used to protect themselves.
And part of me worries that this is working as intended.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-assembly-candidate-dennis-hof-loses-brothel-license/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.