So the argument here is that without backpage she would not have been able to efficiently prostitute herself to support her abusive heroin junkie pimp? I'm fairly certain that the argument "backpage is super effective" is the exact argument used to take it down.
No, the key point is: She was in a situation where whether Backpage existed or not, she would still be doing sex work. With Backpage, she could screen her clients instead of approaching strangers at a gas station not knowing if she would live to see the next morning.
The argument "I'm going to do it anyways, so you might as well make it safe and convenient for me" doesn't sound very persuasive to me, especially if we generalize this principle.
I wouldn't be so quick to say it doesn't harm anyone else.
It's not so far fetched to imagine a married family man acting on an impulse to hire a prostitute. It's a situation where if one wasn't so easily available, he wouldn't have done it.
Not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine this person getting found out by family. Bam! Instant harm to multiple innocent people.
You're right, the availability of sex and sexuality is too much for men to handle. We should criminalize prostitution - and while we're at it, why not criminalize yoga pants? I know those are pretty tempting to me.
Um, no. Things like murder are criminalized because they involve the infringement upon the rights of others against their will. Prostitution does not infringe upon anyone's rights against their will.
The claim by the woman on Twitter is that it made it less dangerous for her. The general claim made by most people who look at this is that it makes it less dangerous. I've not studied it personally, but I see no reason to doubt those claims.
The feds are not shutting down Backpage in order to make this lady's life more difficult. They are shutting it down for trafficking minors. The feds are under no obligation to provide a replacement.
That's not really a response to my comment. You said Backpage made sex work more dangerous. I, and this lady, claimed otherwise. What does Backpage being used to traffic minors have to do with that?
It's probably true for prostitution ads in general, but Backpage in particular did make things more dangerous.
They applied filters to ads which made it harder for law enforcement to search for and find trafficed women; those filters were instant and permanent and so evidence was destroyed.
Backpage themselves claimed (in many of the lawsuits brought against them) that they were unable to take any action on ads for children who were being solf for sex because of the Communications Decency Act.
And people seem a bit confused by the offer: street work is obviously terribly risky. But small ad sex work is still very dangerous. The vast majority of people who sell sex do so to feed an addiction, or because they're being coercively controlled. This is not a willing exchange of a good for money.
> The vast majority of people who sell sex do so to feed an addiction, or because they're being coercively controlled.
That may be true for the vast majority of sex work in general. But I think it's pretty unlikely to be true for the vast majority of sex work advertised online, particularly in places like this. This is an empirical question, of course, but the sexworkers subreddit is some decent evidence in this camp.
Why is prostitution something worth promoting anyways? It is harmful to the person selling themselves, and the people buying. Capitalism doesn't magically make all 'products' morally good. Nor should we allow immoral products merely because 'capitalism'.
Who's promoting it? People should be free to choose to do what they want with their own bodies. That seems like a pretty basic moral principle. The burden of proof is on anyone looking to contravene that.
The same reason people need to do any kind of work; because we are living in a society where he economic system requires most people to sell labor of whatever kind they can that is valued by others in the marketplace in order to survive.
EDIT: And for some people, given that requirement, sex work is the option where the undesirability of doing the work combined with the pay for doing it leaves it the rational choice. In some cases, it's also the least socially objectionable option practically open.
Yes, to be smart enough not to work for Barn Cat and to only work for herself if sex work is the only type of work she wanted to do. Besides that, I'm sure she could've found a variety of other jobs if she really wanted (although potentially a lot less profitable).
Yes, I appreciate that it enables more effective sex work and likely makes her specific case slightly safer. This argument could be used for a multitude of illegal acts, e.g. steroids, heroin, digital piracy, etc. It doesn't change the reality that society has agreed that this act is illegal and should not be enabled.
While this is a very sad story, it doesn't change the fact that prostitution is illegal. Even if it helped save her life, it's still illegal.
Until it is made legal (not happening in the US), there is no argument that should work in favor of making it easier.
There are reasons prostitution is illegal. There are reasons to make it as difficult as possible for someone to find a prostitute. There are enough stories of people who tear apart their lives and families because it was too easy to find a prostitute (implication is that they wouldn't have used a prostitute if they couldn't find one easily and quickly).
It's sad that she suffers from bi-polar, but this is not a utilitarian society. Backpage helping her doesn't justify the fact that it directly led to a proliferation of illegal activity.
Deferring to the law is a thought-stopper. It's entirely possible that something is illegal but should be tolerated or accommodated in some circumstances.
Equating the law with a perfect moral code - i.e. it is always wrong to break the law and always good to obey it - is a flawed way of understanding human society.
35 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 81.0 ms ] threadyay backpage
The argument "I'm going to do it anyways, so you might as well make it safe and convenient for me" doesn't sound very persuasive to me, especially if we generalize this principle.
It's not so far fetched to imagine a married family man acting on an impulse to hire a prostitute. It's a situation where if one wasn't so easily available, he wouldn't have done it.
Not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine this person getting found out by family. Bam! Instant harm to multiple innocent people.
But once you receive the answer to your real question, the reason why prostitution is criminal, while yoga pants are not should be self evident.
Correct, that's why murder is criminalized, and not the reason why prostitution is criminalized.
They applied filters to ads which made it harder for law enforcement to search for and find trafficed women; those filters were instant and permanent and so evidence was destroyed.
Backpage themselves claimed (in many of the lawsuits brought against them) that they were unable to take any action on ads for children who were being solf for sex because of the Communications Decency Act.
And people seem a bit confused by the offer: street work is obviously terribly risky. But small ad sex work is still very dangerous. The vast majority of people who sell sex do so to feed an addiction, or because they're being coercively controlled. This is not a willing exchange of a good for money.
That may be true for the vast majority of sex work in general. But I think it's pretty unlikely to be true for the vast majority of sex work advertised online, particularly in places like this. This is an empirical question, of course, but the sexworkers subreddit is some decent evidence in this camp.
The same reason people need to do any kind of work; because we are living in a society where he economic system requires most people to sell labor of whatever kind they can that is valued by others in the marketplace in order to survive.
EDIT: And for some people, given that requirement, sex work is the option where the undesirability of doing the work combined with the pay for doing it leaves it the rational choice. In some cases, it's also the least socially objectionable option practically open.
Until it is made legal (not happening in the US), there is no argument that should work in favor of making it easier.
There are reasons prostitution is illegal. There are reasons to make it as difficult as possible for someone to find a prostitute. There are enough stories of people who tear apart their lives and families because it was too easy to find a prostitute (implication is that they wouldn't have used a prostitute if they couldn't find one easily and quickly).
It's sad that she suffers from bi-polar, but this is not a utilitarian society. Backpage helping her doesn't justify the fact that it directly led to a proliferation of illegal activity.
Equating the law with a perfect moral code - i.e. it is always wrong to break the law and always good to obey it - is a flawed way of understanding human society.