After skimming that I still have no idea why she opposes it. Because it made her cry? Because she doesn't like the businesses that offer all inclusive packages? Not a great article.
well, i'm kind of surprised that decriminalization of prostitution included decriminalization of pimps. To me it is an area where agency of a service provider should be protected (similar to how it is protected in law and medicine, even if for a different reason).
From what I've heard on the subject so far, decriminalization aims to make it harder to profit off of human trafficking, i.e., to help those who are forced/enslaved into prostitution, or at risk of such. Taking a prostitution job by your own decision won't afford you the same perspective as those whose entire lives have been claimed as property of someone else.
It's refreshing to see a major outlet carrying perspectives like this, at a time where "sex-positive" liberal feminism seems to dominate popular discourse.
but this article was about, "sex-positive liberal feminism"?
if you read the article, she is against what happened in NZ where decriminalization also included decriminalizing the pimps/johns, who are essentially forcing the women they hire in the brothels to work to do "anything" for a set price.
Which is a common deal strategy like in any other business, except the product here is a human being. It's a really fine line being trod. In something so much at the emotional edge, it's probably very hard to find a common and balanced solution that works for all individuals – both prostitutes and porn stars seem to have quite diverting opinions themselves.
The topic of prostitution seems to come up regularly on HN for some reason, and in general the comments defend the use of prostitutes and argue for its legalisation. It is refreshing to see a small break in this pattern.
Everyone must have the complete right to do what they want with their own body, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. No person (especially government) should ever be telling you what you can and can't do with your body.
But let's say we could get pasted the ethical boundary of controlling peoples rights over their own body. Making prostitution illegal does nothing to protect the legitimate women (and men) in the industry. By making it illegal you force people who want to work in the industry to have little to no legal rights:
- If a client rapes or performs unagreed/unconsenting actions, there is no legal place to go for help
- If a consenting prostitute discovers trafficking they are unlikely to report it because they have a distrust of the police
- Legitimate people who would want/enjoy being in this industry stay out, making unground businesses resort to trafficking and abductions.
We already have a legal system capable of protecting and punishing those who kidnap, rape, abuse, molest and hurt other people. All criminalisation of any industry does is prevent participants from receiving government protection.
I don't think it's any women choice to be a prostitute. Did you read the article? She had an abusive step-father and had nobody to talk to.
People are forced to do it and when they start is hard to end. Goverments should have something to say as they are to protect people and being a prostitute is not a solution for lack of education or money.
Yes I read the article and shouldn't the government then focus more time on providing emotional support for adults who were abused as children rather than criminalising an industry because one person (or even a group of people) are in it because they were abused. I'm sure whether she was a sex worker or working in another job she would have struggled emotionally with what happened to her.
What about the people who have to work in McDonalds? Should the government also ban those jobs, where staff are around dangerous hot cooking equipment, rude customers, rude management, dangerous spills that could make them fall? It's a hard life and people have to make money. By criminalising an industry you are preventing people who don't share your own ethical beliefs from making a living. And sex pays a hell of a lot better than McDonalds and has better working hours. Just because people (government) thinks (and it is "thinks" not knows) that sex is unethical and dirty does not make it true.
Also while people may believe that no one wants to be a prostitute that's simply not the case. There is a great deal of people who enjoy it or at a very minimum see it as a legitimate way to make money. You (and government) have to be very careful that they don't enforce their own ethics and policies on people unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. rape, killing, etc)
They do it because they need money fast. If you don't have a passport, education or speak the language its a job that's always looking for new applications.
Prostitution has always existed and will continue to exist for as long as one needs money to buy food. Religion, morality, ethics or laws be damned.
I don't think it's any women choice to be a prostitute.
Well that's presumptuous, patronizing, and paternal.
Frankly, I find it remarkable that this article paints this woman as some sort of representative for all prostitutes. Funny they didn't write an article about her back when she was pro-legalization. But I suppose that's a less interesting story
This is one person, with one opinion, based on experiences with one, arguably broken, decriminalization regime.
New Zealand sounds like a great place to learn lessons about legalizing prostitution. I think it's a mistake to assume that lesson is that it doesn't work, particularly given the known issues with abolition.
It's a way of making prostitution illegal without making the prostitute the one taking the risk. That way a prostitute can report an assault, without fear of recrimination.
Also, yes, the punter is taking a bigger risk and therefore less likely to engage such services.
> Can I put drugs in it? Kill myself? Decide when is fetus is/ins't "my" body?
Yes, Yes and Yes. It is your body and my personal moral compass tells me it is absolutely wrong to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own body just because of someone else's view on morality.
> It might be your body, but it's not your country. Have sex with whoever you like, but as soon as you charge for it, it's a business.
A decade ago, San Francisco had a ballot initiative, Proposition K (2008) to decriminalize prostitution. [1] It got 41% of the vote and failed to pass.
The trouble with the New Zealand law [2] is that it empowers brothel operators. There's a presumption in the law that sex workers must work for a brothel. That put sex workers in a weak bargaining position. Nevada is like that, too. The UK, though, allows prostitution but not pimps or brothels. So it's all phone and Internet based.
(I had this explained to me by one of the people behind Prop. K, a high-end call girl who was also a labor organizer. Definitely not a victim. She wanted to empower sex workers, not pimps. But she was having a hard time getting that message across. At the city level, all they could do was reduce the level of police harassment, not fully legalize sex work. So they couldn't really make rules for sex work.)
This is one reason why we're excited about our company (info in profile). By operating anonymously, we can choose ethics over legality. By erring on the side of sex workers, we can shift some of the power away from abusive clients and review culture. Since we are involved in every transaction and serve as a commercial focus point, we can encourage unions and collective action.
"That put sex workers in a weak bargaining position"
I don't see why this is true at all. I don't see how owners have any significant leverage and/or would be inclined to be any worse than other employers.
A restaurant requires significant investment, great chefs, R&D in dishes, menu, advertising, payment systems, liquor licences. 'Licensing' aside, a 'brothel' in it's simplest form can be pretty simple.
If it's legal and above bar, they are in the exact same position as most other workers.
I'd imagine the bar is not to high for a brothel license (could be wrong) - I don't see why even 2 or 3 women couldn't simply make their own brothel.
Also - I disagree with the idea that 'men' should be punished - this is a movement started in Scandinavia, where gender politics in legislation is getting outlandish. If society deems it an immoral/unsafe act they want to ban it (I'm not taking a position on that) - then both sides should be responsible.
I grew up in a 'single parent' household, my mother had very little in the way of skills - and we made it ok. I know quite a number of people in this situation. I reject the idea that in most cases that prostitution is some kind of 'end of the rope necessity' for women - it's a choice. Now - there are situations of 'sex slavery' and 'extortion' in which case it's really neither the women nor the buyers of sex that are at fault (unless the buyers know there's something wonky, but I'd imagine there's no way to tell one brothel from the next in terms of their 'employee status') - and these 'slave pimps' should be pursued more than anything. This is quite a problem among organized criminals in areas wherein there is high levels of immigration - I know it is in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Women are unable to come forward because often they lack immigration status etc.. This is a serious problem, nearing 'human slavery' and it's 10x the problem in my books.
When it comes to laws there a general good approach to make them very general. General laws a morally useful since we then treat people equal and in fair ways using objective methods to measure success.
So to take such approach here, should a nation make a distinction between a brothel and a construction company? Both has a certain amount of work related injuries, exposure to hazards, and a long history of exploiting workers. A common law can regulate, monitor, and minimize those problems for all industries, and measure the success using establish methods. If workers are in a weak bargaining position then that is often the signal for nations to step in and demanding things like minimum safety rules, minimum wages, overseeing boards, and increased liability for companies.
An individual's personal journey falls some way short of a rationale for public policy.
Policy in this area surely has to focus on harm minimisation rather than ideal worlds. The question to ask isn't if decriminalisation doesn't do any harm; it's whether it is better than criminalisation.
People sign contracts for terrible work conditions all the time, is that a reason to make one specific industry criminal? And this is before mentioning that a contract that specifies "everything" as the job description renders the industry irrelevant - if an accountant signs an employment contract that includes "everything" in the job description then technically that also includes prostitution, coal mining, deep-sea diving, assassinations etc.
>People sign contracts for terrible work conditions all the time, is that a reason to make one specific industry criminal?
Yes. Absolutely. Even setting aside the ways in which legitimized prostitution can still be ripe for individual abuses, the message it sends also needs to be taken into account. Prostitution (and pornography) condition society to see women as commodities. That's unacceptable.
I expect this comment to go gray with lightning speed.
you are projecting your own moral values/philosophy onto everybody claiming that this is right for the society, while in the same time having completely no clue how societies work for thousands of years and what is human nature (and what is not). to give you one single sample, I completely disagree with you but I don't feel the need to state how society should be structured just that I feel comfortable within it.
there are countless examples of people/groups with similar self-righteous attitude, and history proved all of them wrong. so yeah, downvote seems appropriate.
No, prostitution and pornography condition society to see sex workers (20% of them are Male, and likely a significant portion transgendered as well. Thought it was interesting that you only mentioned women) as workers, which is what they are. The argument against legalized prostitution is ridiculous.
Prostitution will always be around - there's no benefit to leaving sex workers to live in the shadows. If you legalize the industry - and not just the workers - you can have at least some amount of control over the health, safety, and quality of workers, employers and clients. By legalizing the industry you also help to normalize sex, which is IMO on way too high of a pedestal in most societies. Sex workers are perceived the way they are largely because of how "sacred" sex is - if you take that power away from sex, then you remove this stigma of sex workers being objectified or somehow less than others because of how they make their living.
This is a sensitive and complex topic. I found it clear after reading the article how even people personally involved struggle to address it well. It’s unsettling to me how definite and confident some of the comments in this thread are. This will sound patronising, yet.. Please do think twice before posting - you’re talking about someone’s life.
39 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 42.1 ms ] threadif you read the article, she is against what happened in NZ where decriminalization also included decriminalizing the pimps/johns, who are essentially forcing the women they hire in the brothels to work to do "anything" for a set price.
But let's say we could get pasted the ethical boundary of controlling peoples rights over their own body. Making prostitution illegal does nothing to protect the legitimate women (and men) in the industry. By making it illegal you force people who want to work in the industry to have little to no legal rights: - If a client rapes or performs unagreed/unconsenting actions, there is no legal place to go for help - If a consenting prostitute discovers trafficking they are unlikely to report it because they have a distrust of the police - Legitimate people who would want/enjoy being in this industry stay out, making unground businesses resort to trafficking and abductions.
We already have a legal system capable of protecting and punishing those who kidnap, rape, abuse, molest and hurt other people. All criminalisation of any industry does is prevent participants from receiving government protection.
People are forced to do it and when they start is hard to end. Goverments should have something to say as they are to protect people and being a prostitute is not a solution for lack of education or money.
What about the people who have to work in McDonalds? Should the government also ban those jobs, where staff are around dangerous hot cooking equipment, rude customers, rude management, dangerous spills that could make them fall? It's a hard life and people have to make money. By criminalising an industry you are preventing people who don't share your own ethical beliefs from making a living. And sex pays a hell of a lot better than McDonalds and has better working hours. Just because people (government) thinks (and it is "thinks" not knows) that sex is unethical and dirty does not make it true.
Also while people may believe that no one wants to be a prostitute that's simply not the case. There is a great deal of people who enjoy it or at a very minimum see it as a legitimate way to make money. You (and government) have to be very careful that they don't enforce their own ethics and policies on people unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. rape, killing, etc)
That's the problem. Drug dealing also pays a lot, I don't think that should be legalized either.
Prostitution has always existed and will continue to exist for as long as one needs money to buy food. Religion, morality, ethics or laws be damned.
Agreed. So let's give them the same legal protections we give every other person.
Well that's presumptuous, patronizing, and paternal.
Frankly, I find it remarkable that this article paints this woman as some sort of representative for all prostitutes. Funny they didn't write an article about her back when she was pro-legalization. But I suppose that's a less interesting story
This is one person, with one opinion, based on experiences with one, arguably broken, decriminalization regime.
New Zealand sounds like a great place to learn lessons about legalizing prostitution. I think it's a mistake to assume that lesson is that it doesn't work, particularly given the known issues with abolition.
However, pimping, brothels and buying sexual services is illegal.
What does that mean ? A prostitute can just finger a client to the police as a client and the client gets arrested ?
It's a way of making prostitution illegal without making the prostitute the one taking the risk. That way a prostitute can report an assault, without fear of recrimination.
Also, yes, the punter is taking a bigger risk and therefore less likely to engage such services.
Can I put drugs in it? Kill myself? Decide when is fetus is/ins't "my" body?
It might be your body, but it's not your country. Have sex with whoever you like, but as soon as you charge for it, it's a business.
Yes, Yes and Yes. It is your body and my personal moral compass tells me it is absolutely wrong to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own body just because of someone else's view on morality.
> It might be your body, but it's not your country. Have sex with whoever you like, but as soon as you charge for it, it's a business.
Whose country is it then?
And if my compass differs, is it also wrong to tell me what I can't do to protect the body of a foetus?
> Whose country is it then?
Everyone's, as administered by a democratic government. Try running a business without paying taxes, or abiding by business regulations.
The trouble with the New Zealand law [2] is that it empowers brothel operators. There's a presumption in the law that sex workers must work for a brothel. That put sex workers in a weak bargaining position. Nevada is like that, too. The UK, though, allows prostitution but not pimps or brothels. So it's all phone and Internet based.
(I had this explained to me by one of the people behind Prop. K, a high-end call girl who was also a labor organizer. Definitely not a victim. She wanted to empower sex workers, not pimps. But she was having a hard time getting that message across. At the city level, all they could do was reduce the level of police harassment, not fully legalize sex work. So they couldn't really make rules for sex work.)
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/01prostitute.html [2] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/D...
I don't see why this is true at all. I don't see how owners have any significant leverage and/or would be inclined to be any worse than other employers.
A restaurant requires significant investment, great chefs, R&D in dishes, menu, advertising, payment systems, liquor licences. 'Licensing' aside, a 'brothel' in it's simplest form can be pretty simple.
If it's legal and above bar, they are in the exact same position as most other workers.
I'd imagine the bar is not to high for a brothel license (could be wrong) - I don't see why even 2 or 3 women couldn't simply make their own brothel.
Also - I disagree with the idea that 'men' should be punished - this is a movement started in Scandinavia, where gender politics in legislation is getting outlandish. If society deems it an immoral/unsafe act they want to ban it (I'm not taking a position on that) - then both sides should be responsible.
I grew up in a 'single parent' household, my mother had very little in the way of skills - and we made it ok. I know quite a number of people in this situation. I reject the idea that in most cases that prostitution is some kind of 'end of the rope necessity' for women - it's a choice. Now - there are situations of 'sex slavery' and 'extortion' in which case it's really neither the women nor the buyers of sex that are at fault (unless the buyers know there's something wonky, but I'd imagine there's no way to tell one brothel from the next in terms of their 'employee status') - and these 'slave pimps' should be pursued more than anything. This is quite a problem among organized criminals in areas wherein there is high levels of immigration - I know it is in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Women are unable to come forward because often they lack immigration status etc.. This is a serious problem, nearing 'human slavery' and it's 10x the problem in my books.
So to take such approach here, should a nation make a distinction between a brothel and a construction company? Both has a certain amount of work related injuries, exposure to hazards, and a long history of exploiting workers. A common law can regulate, monitor, and minimize those problems for all industries, and measure the success using establish methods. If workers are in a weak bargaining position then that is often the signal for nations to step in and demanding things like minimum safety rules, minimum wages, overseeing boards, and increased liability for companies.
Policy in this area surely has to focus on harm minimisation rather than ideal worlds. The question to ask isn't if decriminalisation doesn't do any harm; it's whether it is better than criminalisation.
Yes. Absolutely. Even setting aside the ways in which legitimized prostitution can still be ripe for individual abuses, the message it sends also needs to be taken into account. Prostitution (and pornography) condition society to see women as commodities. That's unacceptable.
I expect this comment to go gray with lightning speed.
there are countless examples of people/groups with similar self-righteous attitude, and history proved all of them wrong. so yeah, downvote seems appropriate.
Prostitution will always be around - there's no benefit to leaving sex workers to live in the shadows. If you legalize the industry - and not just the workers - you can have at least some amount of control over the health, safety, and quality of workers, employers and clients. By legalizing the industry you also help to normalize sex, which is IMO on way too high of a pedestal in most societies. Sex workers are perceived the way they are largely because of how "sacred" sex is - if you take that power away from sex, then you remove this stigma of sex workers being objectified or somehow less than others because of how they make their living.