There seems to be a group wanting to decriminalized sex work ie sex for money? How far do you want to take that.
Should a man be able to place a wanted ad for a sex worker?
Should a business be able to employ sex workers to provide services for employees, just like how some companies will employ cooks, personal trainers, etc now.
Should sex work be part of an employment contract? Should expected duties include having sex with the boss along with more traditional duties?
I think that decriminalizing and de-stigmatizing sex for money will have far greater follow-on social effects than people think.
Prostitution has been legal in Nevada for a long time and none of these things have happened. Just because something is legalized, it doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for a professional context.
The only reason not to would be because of additional beauracratic overhead of supporting such an edgecase.
Otherwise who cares if some people want to marry a dog. Just because you make it legal doesn’t mean everyone is all of a sudden going to start marrying dogs...
Why do people always go right to bestiality whenever someone wants their rights to be respected? Gay people marrying, omg they’re going to marry dogs next!
No... they won’t. And they haven’t. I think it’s judt a way to try and instill disgust without having to own it, in other words, a dog whistle.
It's really weird. Beastiality or children, right away.
Consent can have some gray areas (which is why people push for affirmative consent) but children/animals clearly cannot consent. A person who is a victim of trafficking is not consenting.
Maybe in addition to thinking about society, we should think about sex workers as humans.
Specifically, how by forcing their profession (which weighed morally right or wrong, still exists and will continue to) into a legal gray area we actively make them vulnerable to further exploitation.
For example, by criminalizing websites that are involved in the profession, we strip their ability to use the internet openly for their own safety and education.
By threatening their business with legal charges, we disempower them against less scrupulous elements of the legal system (law enforcement or prosecutorial). Resulting in extortion or coercion.
So would legalizing sex work and bringing it under a regulatory framework "change things" for everyone? Yes.
But not doing so is cruel and dehumanizing enough that I'm frankly disgusted to live in a society that feels prosecuting sex work is the "right" moral choice.
Just because there are details to work out doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized.
Imagine trying to legalize alcohol for the first time. What if kids drink it? What if people drive after drinking? We managed to work through the follow-on effects with a system of rules that left most people feeling content and safe.
I think yes, similar to medical providers, make it a regulated and professional business like any other.
The biggest impact of keeping it illegal is legitimatizing a whole class of stigmas based on primitive superstitions. It's time to shed that baggage and grow up.
But that's not the point of this article. The article says:
"Nor is there any mention of the fact that Demand Abolition, in exchange for providing approximately $191,667 in funding to the King County prosecutor’s office over four years, asked Seattle-area law enforcement to carry out regular arrests and prosecutions of buyers with the goal of disrupting demand."
The question is whether it's appropriate for a group of citizens to be able to fund a prosecutor's office and expect it to arrest people in return for its funding.
How would you feel if some anti-drug group gave your local prosecutor money and told them they had to aggressively arrest pot users?
Should prosecutors be allowed to accept money from private groups at all? Or should they be funded entirely by taxpayer dollars, distributed by elected officials?
Yet somehow men are still able to place sugar daddy ads, employers occasionally spring for prostitutes for employees, and some even expect sex from subordinates.
I think legalization has far more beneficial effects than you realize.
And don’t use the word “decriminalize”, it’s regularly used to describe another way of continuing prohibition by making the core offenses no longer felonies, but still illegal. Which means prostitutes are still at the mercy of pimps and customers without any police protection. And it would remain a black market with the profits used to support organized crime.
This is extremely troubling. Imagine if groups could give money to police and prosecutors in exchange for vigorous enforcement of marijuana laws or gun laws. Then imagine a scenario where police and prosecutors will not enforce laws unless a group gives them money.
It gets even worse: the prosecutors agreed to a quota of a particular number of prosecutions, which presumably translates into an arrest quota for the police:
> "King County prosecutors again agreed to meet particular prosecutorial goals in exchange for funding. They signed a written agreement promising to achieve a total of 14,800 “direct buyer disruptions”..."
When police start arresting people to make their quotas, they can end up arresting innocent people.
Also, the prosecutor's behavior goes beyond accepting money to enforce laws:
> "A legal scholar interviewed by The Intercept said he thinks that by calling consensual prostitution “trafficking,” the prosecutors’ behavior doesn’t only appear to violate those rules of professional conduct, subsequently hurting the right of the accused to a fair trial."
The group that's financing this, which was founded by a Texas oil heiress, is operating in several cities across the U.S.:
> "Demand Abolition has also provided millions of dollars in funding to law enforcement agencies and other organizations in local jurisdictions around the country, including Boston, Chicago (a part of Cook County, whose Sheriff’s office received $92,145 in funding from Demand Abolition between 2014 and 2016), Denver, Oakland (a part of Alameda County), Houston, and Dallas, according to tax documents."
I find it kind of disturbing that one person with millions of dollars to throw around can influence the running of local law enforcement all over the country. There is significant potential for abuse in a system that allows this.
16 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadShould a man be able to place a wanted ad for a sex worker?
Should a business be able to employ sex workers to provide services for employees, just like how some companies will employ cooks, personal trainers, etc now.
Should sex work be part of an employment contract? Should expected duties include having sex with the boss along with more traditional duties?
I think that decriminalizing and de-stigmatizing sex for money will have far greater follow-on social effects than people think.
are we going to legalize marrying a dog next?
Otherwise who cares if some people want to marry a dog. Just because you make it legal doesn’t mean everyone is all of a sudden going to start marrying dogs...
The other problem is that animals aren't legal persons and can't take part in contracts, let alone marriage.
No... they won’t. And they haven’t. I think it’s judt a way to try and instill disgust without having to own it, in other words, a dog whistle.
Consent can have some gray areas (which is why people push for affirmative consent) but children/animals clearly cannot consent. A person who is a victim of trafficking is not consenting.
Nor is marrying a dog the exact same act as an otherwise totally acceptable act, but done for money (as is prostitution vs regular sex).
I think we should absolutely penalize bogus argumentation, where those making haven't spent more than a second thinking it out...
Specifically, how by forcing their profession (which weighed morally right or wrong, still exists and will continue to) into a legal gray area we actively make them vulnerable to further exploitation.
For example, by criminalizing websites that are involved in the profession, we strip their ability to use the internet openly for their own safety and education.
By threatening their business with legal charges, we disempower them against less scrupulous elements of the legal system (law enforcement or prosecutorial). Resulting in extortion or coercion.
So would legalizing sex work and bringing it under a regulatory framework "change things" for everyone? Yes.
But not doing so is cruel and dehumanizing enough that I'm frankly disgusted to live in a society that feels prosecuting sex work is the "right" moral choice.
Imagine trying to legalize alcohol for the first time. What if kids drink it? What if people drive after drinking? We managed to work through the follow-on effects with a system of rules that left most people feeling content and safe.
The biggest impact of keeping it illegal is legitimatizing a whole class of stigmas based on primitive superstitions. It's time to shed that baggage and grow up.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/08/13/globalp...
"Nor is there any mention of the fact that Demand Abolition, in exchange for providing approximately $191,667 in funding to the King County prosecutor’s office over four years, asked Seattle-area law enforcement to carry out regular arrests and prosecutions of buyers with the goal of disrupting demand."
The question is whether it's appropriate for a group of citizens to be able to fund a prosecutor's office and expect it to arrest people in return for its funding.
How would you feel if some anti-drug group gave your local prosecutor money and told them they had to aggressively arrest pot users?
Should prosecutors be allowed to accept money from private groups at all? Or should they be funded entirely by taxpayer dollars, distributed by elected officials?
Yet somehow men are still able to place sugar daddy ads, employers occasionally spring for prostitutes for employees, and some even expect sex from subordinates.
I think legalization has far more beneficial effects than you realize.
And don’t use the word “decriminalize”, it’s regularly used to describe another way of continuing prohibition by making the core offenses no longer felonies, but still illegal. Which means prostitutes are still at the mercy of pimps and customers without any police protection. And it would remain a black market with the profits used to support organized crime.
> "King County prosecutors again agreed to meet particular prosecutorial goals in exchange for funding. They signed a written agreement promising to achieve a total of 14,800 “direct buyer disruptions”..."
When police start arresting people to make their quotas, they can end up arresting innocent people.
Also, the prosecutor's behavior goes beyond accepting money to enforce laws:
> "A legal scholar interviewed by The Intercept said he thinks that by calling consensual prostitution “trafficking,” the prosecutors’ behavior doesn’t only appear to violate those rules of professional conduct, subsequently hurting the right of the accused to a fair trial."
The group that's financing this, which was founded by a Texas oil heiress, is operating in several cities across the U.S.:
> "Demand Abolition has also provided millions of dollars in funding to law enforcement agencies and other organizations in local jurisdictions around the country, including Boston, Chicago (a part of Cook County, whose Sheriff’s office received $92,145 in funding from Demand Abolition between 2014 and 2016), Denver, Oakland (a part of Alameda County), Houston, and Dallas, according to tax documents."
I find it kind of disturbing that one person with millions of dollars to throw around can influence the running of local law enforcement all over the country. There is significant potential for abuse in a system that allows this.