Pretty sure we’ve been over this in previous threads, with the concern that full legalization comes with taxation, regulation, health care/checkup requirements and more, which can sound very reasonable until someone trying to cam solo has to jump through a pile of hoops and get a battery of tests and whatnot.
It’s a complicated issue, is my understanding.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
We've also seen via marijuana legislation, decriminalization can lead to legalization rapidly because you can point to the use with few negative consequences and ask "why not?"
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Pretty sure the point being argued is that the desires of sex workers aren't relevant to everything-or-nothing, perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good "allies".
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Pretty sure the point being argued is that the desires of sex workers aren'trelevant to everything-or-nothing, perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good "allies".
I think thats a pretty shitty card to pull in a casual policy discussion!
But it's the truth, if you're gonna sit there and fuck up decriminalization because it isn't full legalization it hurts the people that are actually doing the thing.
Decriminalization of marijuana isn't full legalization, but it's better than full mandatory minimum illegality.
A step forward might not be everything, and it might not be all the way to the goal but it's better than standing still cause you can't go directly to the goal.
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
I actually don't think that decriminalization would have any effect on whether sex workers fear the police, nor are "easy prey", and I think describing them in that way is actually kind of dehumanizing to them.
0
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
Jesus. Can we just talk about preferred hypothetical policies without getting another incrementalist lecture?!
The thread in general? Because Warren’s plan was for decriminalization and that was basically a jumping off point as to what exactly that distinction meant here.
Maybe slow your roll slightly, nobody was trying to lecture anyone.
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
If you believe people are lacking enough information to discuss a topic it'd be a lot more helpful if you explained it then rather than just talk down to everyone.
Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.
Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.
Decriminalization in this context usually means that there are no criminal charges for the prostitutes, but pimps, sex traffickers, and others involved in the business end still get arrested.
no charges for prostitutes, and also their clients
it also typically means that there's very little if any regulation, in the way of licensing and whatnot, which is why sex workers are often very particular about using the word "decriminalize" over "legalize"
to add to this, it's extremely important that there are no charges for clients, because the statistics show that decriminalizing prostitution but continuing to criminalize buying sex actually leads to increased sexual violence against sex workers
+8
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
If you believe people are lacking enough information to discuss a topic it'd be a lot more helpful if you explained it then rather than just talk down to everyone.
Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.
Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.
Decriminalization in this context usually means that there are no criminal charges for the prostitutes, but pimps, sex traffickers, and others involved in the business end still get arrested.
no charges for prostitutes, and also their clients
it also typically means that there's very little if any regulation, in the way of licensing and whatnot, which is why sex workers are often very particular about using the word "decriminalize" over "legalize"
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
I don't believe I'm the one who felt the need to talk to people in this way.
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
I mean, even if decriminalization is the end goal for some people because they don't want the potential regulatory problems that come with full legalization, it still sounds like Warren's position here is unambiguously good:
Either you actively want decriminalization instead of legalization, in which case: Yay, mission accomplished
Or you want full legalization, in which case decriminalization is a step on that path and once we have decriminalization we can then argue about whether we should stay there or move to full legalization.
It seems like decriminalization is a clear improvement on the status quo for all parties, and there's no reason to hang out in the 'sex work is illegal' status quo while we argue about which kind of not-illegal it should be.
Jesus. Can we just talk about preferred hypothetical policies without getting another incrementalist lecture?!
The thread in general? Because Warren’s plan was for decriminalization and that was basically a jumping off point as to what exactly that distinction meant here.
Maybe slow your roll slightly, nobody was trying to lecture anyone.
Basically any comment anywhere around "Id like more", regardles of how mild, is met with the same bit about being responsible and mature and stupid insinuations on the character of others.
i definitely think there's a trend in these kinds of discussions where someone says "x isn't good enough" and it's interpreted as "and i will personally stand in the way of any attempts to enact it, daring you to move me" rather than "we really need more if we want meaningful societal change, unfortunately"
also one of the things that constantly leads to conflict in politics threads is that you're not really having an argument with one person, you're having an argument with one person and every argument they've ever had on the subject. we all wind up bringing in baggage and bias against our opponents because we've all had these discussions with complete morons on the other end, and those cursed blackguards forever taint us and our ability to interpret others.
+8
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.
Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.
It means that prostitutes can expect protection from police if they are assaulted or abused rather than arrest.
Decriminalization is usually the first step to legalization, so stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and saying "No half measures!" is a good way to continue the current state of affairs in which sex workers fear the police and are easy prey to rapists, thieves and murderers.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
If you believe people are lacking enough information to discuss a topic it'd be a lot more helpful if you explained it then rather than just talk down to everyone.
Some clarification: under legalisation, sex work is controlled by the government and is legal only under certain state-specified conditions. Decriminalisation involves the removal of all prostitution-specific laws, although sex workers and sex work businesses must still operate within the laws of the land, as must any businesses.
Clear examples of a legalised system in Europe come from the Netherlands and Austria; a murkier example from Germany. In the Netherlands, brothels have been legal since 2000, but only if they comply with specific requirements and, in some cases, undergo regular visits from the police. Street workers must operate in designated areas, outside which they will be committing a criminal offence.
It is decriminalization, not legalisation, that sex worker organizations and human rights organizations like Amnesty International are advocating for. It might seem like splitting hairs because both mean that sex work would be legal, but it's important because there is broad opposition to the kind of legalized systems that exist in places. Yet legalisation is often proposed in that sense. The point of decriminalization is that sex work just no longer be a crime.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
basically, prostitution should be legal like how me selling you my bike is legal, not like how performing surgery is legal.
.I hope Warren has a plan to counter the Think of the Children narrative that the right is going to vomit out in response to decriminalized prostitution.
.I hope Warren has a plan to counter the Think of the Children narrative that the right is going to vomit out in response to decriminalized prostitution.
I hope it's:
"prostitution is not for children you sick weirdos"
In more direct primary news, Warren's apparently been talking to Andrew Gillum a lot.
I would be super on board with this ticket.
I like it too
it's a tricky issue though, because I don't want some useless stuffed shirt VP, but I also would generally prefer that we stop dragging hardworking organizers away from important local/regional work
.I hope Warren has a plan to counter the Think of the Children narrative that the right is going to vomit out in response to decriminalized prostitution.
Given so many scandals that have come out, too many Republicans already think of the children when they think of sex work. Maybe they shouldn't try to make that connection when attacking Warren.
.I hope Warren has a plan to counter the Think of the Children narrative that the right is going to vomit out in response to decriminalized prostitution.
It’s her one policy that Trump can support. Then he won’t have to pay thousands of dollars to the women he sleeps with anymore.
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
What was the deal with Andrew Gillum’s corruption scandals during the governor’s race? Was that legitimate or ratfucking? Would he be a liability to Warren?
+1
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
What was the deal with Andrew Gillum’s corruption scandals during the governor’s race? Was that legitimate or ratfucking? Would he be a liability to Warren?
In February 2017, Gillum apologized after the Tallahassee Democrat reported that his government office had been used to send emails through web-based software purchased by NGP VAN, a company that provides technology to Democratic and progressive campaigns.[37] An investigation into the emails started after Paul Henry, a retired state trooper from Monticello, wrote State Attorney Jack Campbell in March to allege Gillum committed grand theft and official misconduct by paying for the software with city funds when he believed they served no public purpose. A Leon County grand jury cleared Gillum of any wrongdoing.[38]
During his mayoral campaign in 2014, Gillum faced allegations of misconduct after hiring private equity investor Adam Corey as the treasurer. Corey is an investor in The Edison, a restaurant that received taxpayer money from the city to help with the Cascades Park development project. During a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the matter, city officials stated that Gillum's vote did not constitute a conflict of interest[5] and Gillum cut ties with Corey.[39]
According to text messages uncovered by the Tampa Bay Times, Gillum accepted tickets to the Broadway musical Hamilton from his brother, Marcus Gillum, who got them through an undercover FBI agent conducting a corruption investigation. The agent was posing as a real estate developer.[40] Gillum responded to the Tampa Bay Times story, "These messages only confirm what we have said all along. We did go to see Hamilton. I did get my ticket to Hamilton from my brother. At the time, we believed that they were reserved by friends of Adam's, Mike Miller. And when I got there after work, got my ticket, we went in there and saw it, assumed my brother paid for it, and so far as I know, that was the deal."[40]
In late January 2019, the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause that Gillum violated state ethics laws when he allegedly accepted gifts during out-of-town excursions with lobbyists and vendors and didn't report them.[41] Ultimately, a $5,000 settlement was agreed to on four out of the five charges.
the last thing is pretty minor but still not a great look; I doubt it will be a big liability for Warren but who knows
That Fox poll we've been talking about in impeachment land has all three frontrunning Dems up by basically the same margin against Trump. 10 points for Biden and Warren, 9 for Sanders.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.
Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.
Decriminalization in this context usually means that there are no criminal charges for the prostitutes, but pimps, sex traffickers, and others involved in the business end still get arrested.
no charges for prostitutes, and also their clients
it also typically means that there's very little if any regulation, in the way of licensing and whatnot, which is why sex workers are often very particular about using the word "decriminalize" over "legalize"
correct
legalization means that only under certain circumstances could sex work be done. legalization is a form of control. which is not bad, but might not be good either. Decriminalization means that workers can operate as they wish without having to say, have an office location that meets certain specifications. And it would remove the main impediment to making sex work safer which is that sex workers cannot usually trust that they will not be arrested in the course of reporting the crimes they themselves were a victim of.
You may be able to tell but I have been persuaded by some vocal sex workers that decriminalization is the way to go
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
basically, prostitution should be legal like how me selling you my bike is legal, not like how performing surgery is legal.
Ehh, I'm not sure that's the right way around unless you have some very charitable labour laws and programs to actively find alternative work for manual workers.
If prostitution is legal and just any other job, you have to accept that this is work you could do if you don't want to lose benefits. Or accept that loss of benefits can't be tied to work (hello UBI).
I also feel that politically active sex workers are not the majority here, and whilst wildly not an expert - I can see the logic in it being the ultimate dead end job. It's generally not skill based, the traits that make you valuable depreciate over time and at least at the moment it's difficult to transfer out of the industry based on the skills you learn. Not to mention that the bulk of this work is not done by choice, even though some do.
I think sex work is something special, sex is a more fundamental facet of human relationships than even the bringing of food, and no one should be forced into sex work for financial reasons. As a hobby, or even something that ends up bringing in the bulk of your income - yeah, fine. But expect additional scrutiny and a few hoops, because your mild inconvenience is another woman's slavery.
It's a tangent that probably deserves it's own thread, but sex work really needs it's own category. It's not just any old job and shouldn't be treated as such - it's profoundly tied into how humans experience relationships and open to incredible exploitation which has been carried out for millennia.
Biden's time in the LGBTQ forum was extremely "I'm an old white man and I've never met a f- a gay in my life, but I've heard stories about what they get up to!"
Posts
It’s a complicated issue, is my understanding.
this is a fucked up way to talk about the desires of sex workers
Pretty sure the point being argued is that the desires of sex workers aren't relevant to everything-or-nothing, perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good "allies".
I think thats a pretty shitty card to pull in a casual policy discussion!
Decriminalization of marijuana isn't full legalization, but it's better than full mandatory minimum illegality.
A step forward might not be everything, and it might not be all the way to the goal but it's better than standing still cause you can't go directly to the goal.
Jesus. Can we just talk about preferred hypothetical policies without getting another incrementalist lecture?!
Its the very real situation currently faced. Decriminalization is the first step that has any chance and what leads to the ideal of eventual legalization. Disliking that reality doesn't change it.
as I said before, decriminalization is the goal, not the first step. you don't even have the absolute basic vocabulary of this very important piece of social policy down and it makes it hard to take this discussion seriously.
The thread in general? Because Warren’s plan was for decriminalization and that was basically a jumping off point as to what exactly that distinction meant here.
Maybe slow your roll slightly, nobody was trying to lecture anyone.
If you believe people are lacking enough information to discuss a topic it'd be a lot more helpful if you explained it then rather than just talk down to everyone.
to add to this, it's extremely important that there are no charges for clients, because the statistics show that decriminalizing prostitution but continuing to criminalize buying sex actually leads to increased sexual violence against sex workers
indeed.
I don't believe I'm the one who felt the need to talk to people in this way.
I mean, even if decriminalization is the end goal for some people because they don't want the potential regulatory problems that come with full legalization, it still sounds like Warren's position here is unambiguously good:
Either you actively want decriminalization instead of legalization, in which case: Yay, mission accomplished
Or you want full legalization, in which case decriminalization is a step on that path and once we have decriminalization we can then argue about whether we should stay there or move to full legalization.
It seems like decriminalization is a clear improvement on the status quo for all parties, and there's no reason to hang out in the 'sex work is illegal' status quo while we argue about which kind of not-illegal it should be.
Basically any comment anywhere around "Id like more", regardles of how mild, is met with the same bit about being responsible and mature and stupid insinuations on the character of others.
interesting. he might be a good VP choice for her, but I think I'd prefer that he keep working on unfucking Florida.
I wouldn't go that far, but that is a policing issue, not an issue with the policy itself.
https://newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/difference-between-decriminalisation-and-legalisation-sex-work
It is decriminalization, not legalisation, that sex worker organizations and human rights organizations like Amnesty International are advocating for. It might seem like splitting hairs because both mean that sex work would be legal, but it's important because there is broad opposition to the kind of legalized systems that exist in places. Yet legalisation is often proposed in that sense. The point of decriminalization is that sex work just no longer be a crime.
I hope it's:
"prostitution is not for children you sick weirdos"
I like it too
it's a tricky issue though, because I don't want some useless stuffed shirt VP, but I also would generally prefer that we stop dragging hardworking organizers away from important local/regional work
Given so many scandals that have come out, too many Republicans already think of the children when they think of sex work. Maybe they shouldn't try to make that connection when attacking Warren.
It’s her one policy that Trump can support. Then he won’t have to pay thousands of dollars to the women he sleeps with anymore.
mostly the latter, possibly a bit of the former
the last thing is pretty minor but still not a great look; I doubt it will be a big liability for Warren but who knows
From the LGBTQ forum CNN's airing tonight. Pretty funny answer.
Biden's time was weird by all accounts.
correct
legalization means that only under certain circumstances could sex work be done. legalization is a form of control. which is not bad, but might not be good either. Decriminalization means that workers can operate as they wish without having to say, have an office location that meets certain specifications. And it would remove the main impediment to making sex work safer which is that sex workers cannot usually trust that they will not be arrested in the course of reporting the crimes they themselves were a victim of.
You may be able to tell but I have been persuaded by some vocal sex workers that decriminalization is the way to go
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Weird is an understatement.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ehh, I'm not sure that's the right way around unless you have some very charitable labour laws and programs to actively find alternative work for manual workers.
If prostitution is legal and just any other job, you have to accept that this is work you could do if you don't want to lose benefits. Or accept that loss of benefits can't be tied to work (hello UBI).
I also feel that politically active sex workers are not the majority here, and whilst wildly not an expert - I can see the logic in it being the ultimate dead end job. It's generally not skill based, the traits that make you valuable depreciate over time and at least at the moment it's difficult to transfer out of the industry based on the skills you learn. Not to mention that the bulk of this work is not done by choice, even though some do.
I think sex work is something special, sex is a more fundamental facet of human relationships than even the bringing of food, and no one should be forced into sex work for financial reasons. As a hobby, or even something that ends up bringing in the bulk of your income - yeah, fine. But expect additional scrutiny and a few hoops, because your mild inconvenience is another woman's slavery.
It's a tangent that probably deserves it's own thread, but sex work really needs it's own category. It's not just any old job and shouldn't be treated as such - it's profoundly tied into how humans experience relationships and open to incredible exploitation which has been carried out for millennia.