My elementary school was a religious one. There was something that deeply annoyed me about how they reasoned. I couldn't put my finger on it then, but I got a knee-jerk reaction as soon as I heard it. It was just that: love is better than hate, virtue is better than sin, etc. so you must comply with what God/they/your parents said because they loved you vs. your bad instincts, inspired by the devil that is Bad.
By the time I started high scholl in a public school, the dictator had died and we transitioned to democracy. Tolerance was the magic word. We can now speak our minds, accept others' opinions, discuss frankly any idea.
But then the left was the forbidden set of ideas making itself a space. Forty years later they're hegemonic and "zero tolerance" (I hate that expression) and beware of what you say are back.
They're exactly the same as their parents (that they consider troglodites) just with a different set of dogmas. Ideas change easily with the fads, but mindsets not so fast.
The trick is to present an idea that's absolutely good on paper like: "don't you think that everybody should have what they need to live?" But ignoring all the practical details of implementation: if it's at all possible, if the proposed measures are useful to reach that goal, etc.
No one of them would call themselves "absolutists", that sounds like ancient regime, or fascists, nazis. But they reason in absolutes and there's no way to touch them with words. They won't negotiate because they just vote for politicians that promise to magically implement that wishful thinking. The politicians will negotiate to reach power, though, they know better.
I'll add that Haidt's analysis that the value placed on compassion relative to loyalty or fairness is a good predictor of party rings true. Compassion > fairness -> democrat Compassion = fairness -> republican Compassion < fairness -> libertarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Model_approach_to_prost...
> It has also been reported that 12,5 % of men used to solicit prostitutes before the implementation of the law in 1999 whereas in 2014 only 7,7 % of men purchased sexual services.[5]
As the top comment said, this was never about actually decreasing prostitution, but about victimizing and outcasting women.
The majority of people oppose decriminalisation [1] even in fairly progressive Ontario, Canada, 6 in 10 oppose it [2]
Second - it's a very reasonable course of action to make an activity which is deemed harmful - actually illegal.
"Smoking is bad" -> "Let's make it widely available" is generally not the first order course of action.
Ergo - your assumptions about 'moralising and not caring' is starting to inch into anti-religious bigotry territory.
Now - obviously this is a nuanced issue - and it's possible more permissive laws might lessen harm, but this is by no means obvious.
We saw this with vaping: once something becomes socially normative, behaviours can grow rapidly. There is a black market for almost everything, legal or not.
A large, wide open, legalised & regulated sex trade may simply provide more customers for nefarious sex-traders who can take all the profit & provide underage girls (which will surely remain illegal).
The cigarette industry provides good parallel example, although it's surely not perfect. [3]
In short - increased taxes (i.e. supply curve shift) and overall changes in social norms away from smoking have not caused an increase in illicit consumption - just the opposite. Illicit consumption is down. This might imply that creating more barriers to the sex trade (law), and also reducing demand (social norms), would likely have the overall effect of reducing black market for sex-slavery.
Of course, it's not nearly a perfect analogy, and it's a complicated subject and of course there are individuals and groups who are probably more concerned about morality than justice, but it's still not fair to castigate a policy as being one way or the other.
Personally, I don't see how normalising the sex trade and providing vast online services decreases frequency of transactions, but I'm open minded about the right way to do this. Though I personally think it should be 'decriminalised' (not illegal, but sex workers not allowed to go to 'job fairs' at high school!), I would put the wellbeing of those being trafficked ahead of any of that.
[1] https://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID...
[2] https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/LAWC-and-CATW-Prostit...
Meanwhile, SESTA/FOSTA effectively puts such a burden on web operators that even legitimate sites (like Craiglist personals) have been shut down out of fear that they will be liable if someone misuses them. This is even true in states and municipalities that choose to legalize prostitution. The effect of SESTA/FOSTA is to usurp states' ability to decide for themselves how they want to regulate the sex trade, at least as far as it comes to the communication platforms they can use. If the intent of SESTA/FOSTA was to inhibit prostitution that didn't involve trafficking, fine, but that's not how it was sold by elected Democrats.
I wouldn't be so cynical about this, except that there is a long history in the US of using moral panic around trafficking to enforce moral preferences -- look at how the Mann act was used against interracial couples, for example. I'm all for helping actual victims of trafficking, but using outrage about trafficking for other political purposes upsets me.
Alternately, decriminalizing sex work means law enforcement would stop wasting their time their pursuing adult sex workers doing legit business, and actually focus on the trafficking of those actually being exploited.
I think the relevant questions are:
- "What are the mindsets they've actually absorbed over their lives?"
- "How do they evaluate evidence?"
- "How do they evaluate the competence and character of judicial and executive appointees?"
- "Whom do they rely on for expertise?"
- "How do they reason about the role of government?"
- "How do they design policies?"
- "How do they spot potential unintended consequences?"
- "How do they communicate with constituents?"
- "Whose perspectives do they believe it is important to consider?"
- "Whom do they consider key to re-election?"
A poll by YouGov in 2016 found that Republicans were 7% more likely than Democrats to believe sex work should remain illegal: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me...
But the real gap was between the genders. Women were 14% more likely to say sex work should be illegal than men. They were also 18% more likely to say it's immoral.
Now what "feminists" think is another question, I doubt that has been studied, and that term means a lot of things to a lot of people. But according to the polls the majority of the opposition in the US to legalizing and tolerating sex work comes from women, regardless of their political orientation.
One can extrapolate that electing more women would lead to harsher laws about sex work and indeed both have happened in the past decade.
No evidence has been presented to support the parent's anecdotal belief about what feminists think. I have spoken to plenty of feminists over the years and have found them to be split pretty evenly over this issue. My point was that the opposition to legalizing sex work is mostly from females, and may or may not be from feminists (whatever that word even means in 2020).
This is not a new issue.
If I say "Germans eat bread for breakfast" that's generally understood to mean "In general Germans eat bread for breakfast" or "A majority of Germans eat bread for breakfast". Treating it as if I said "Every German eats bread for every breakfast" would be constructing a straw man. People generally understand that there is variation in every group, even if they don't explicitly put that disclaimer on every sentence.
The two arguments that people here use is that a person that do sex for money would not had done so voluntary, thus there no consent. The second argument is that paying a person to do something with their body is the same as buying a human being, which would be slavery.
Views are formed in the gut, not the brain.
People are against prostitution because they find it disgusting. Their justifications are all ex post facto.
And this applies to most views, including ones I hold (although that's difficult to admit).
As a Swede, I say that that is an exageration. But it is true that very few, if any, public figure dare to speak up for legalizing prostitution. On the other hand, it's not a crime that the police prioritize, and last time I heard, no one have been more than fined for paying a sex-worker.
It was also not many months ago that V (the most left leaning party) suggested that the punishment for paying a sex-worker should be increased to similar levels as rape, with jail time as minimum.
We could say that V views are a fringe part of the feminist movement in Sweden, but I am not sure that is actually a correct assessment. As you say, few, if any, public figure dare to speak up with opposing views on the topic. It is hard to estimate popular opinion outside of political polls.
Being compensated for your work is the extreme opposite of slavery.
is this really representative of how the public thinks or just a small pocket within a pocket of politically correct snowflakes? Knowing plenty of Swedes (most are much closer to the far left than to the far right). I'm familiar with Sweden's (strange) view of what constitutes rape (see Assange), and personally think that is a step forward. But I never met anyone argue that "all prostitution is sex slavery" or "anti-feminist".
> paying a person to do something with their body is the same as buying a human being, which would be slavery.
This seems like a gross simplification. If I offer my body in exchange for money without a middle-man/pimp then it is still my choice. Consider an individual with below avg IQ unable to find meaningful work using his head but equipped with an unusually strong body/frame. Is it slavery if I freelance myself out to a moving company and lug around boxes and furniture all day? What about a male gay prostitute who voluntarily makes money on the side. It is even besides the point if the person is supporting a drug-habit or not.
You can't pretend to be pro choice and feminist if at the same time the system under which you think socially outcasts everyone who thinks differently.
I think the problem with many feminists in Sweden are that they are a rather theoretical kind, centered around gender studies at the universities. And they think that they know better than the poor uneducated women who sell sex what they want and need themselves.
Just make a law so that persons must do something with payers bodies, not vice versa. It solves two problems with one shot: it’s no slavery anymore and finally you get some service.
- the rights of sex workers
- the status of trans people
and a bunch of other things.
She's really not very likeable.
Her experience indicates that feminist groups who oppose legalised prostitution are a very small minority, at least in our Australian state.
As for those who are against it, sure, maybe some reason in the cynical way you describe. But I think the lion’s share are motivated by other reasons. Typically they argue that prostitution is coercive, as you can’t call something “consensual” that someone needs to do to survive.
Personally I think prostitution should be just as legal as any other kind of work; but that’s not a license to grossly misinterpret the arguments of those who disagree.
* for their own good
* for perceived externalities
This is common enough for drugs, heavy metal, child employment, and contracting that it doesn’t surprise me they would apply it to prostitution. In fact, I think the probability of women wanting to corner the market for sex is low.
1. Drugs should all be legal as Portugal's legalization of all drugs has shown us the war on drugs is a massive boondoggle. [1] So has Canada's legalization of marijuana.
2. Child employment is legislated on the basis that children aren't able to make their own decisions, and that sounds ok.
3. Heavy metals, I assume you don't mean the music, is regulated to protect the welfare of the entire population.
4. Contracting?
> I think the probability of women wanting to corner the market for sex is low.
I can't think of a single reason to legislate consenting adults exchanging money for sex. It's not for me, but as with the war on drugs, the medicine is so much worse than the cure it's time we dropped it. The only thing harmed by regulated, clean and safe prostitution is property value and puritanical sensibilities.
Especially when scientists taught monkeys the value of money and they first thing they did was exchange it for sex. [2] That might be the most fitting epitaph for humanity yet, actually haha.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
[2] https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-mon...
Here in Portugal drug use is what we call ”decriminalized”. It's forbidden but not persecutted/punishable.
But I agree that going after drug users is a waste of effort, and more contries should do like us and just go after dealers and distributors.
The only way you could go after users is if you use an extreme islam way, death penalty. Not very ethical.
Like... almost all other laws?
Do you think murder is immoral? Well guess what? There's a law for that. Just because you disagree with the morality being legislated, you can't pretend that "legislating morality" is the problem.
Using the same reasoning to outlaw prostitution is harder. Sure you could argue people have a right to not be a prostitute -- and I heartily agree with that -- but then the job of the law is to prevent people from being prostitutes against their will. All outlawing prostitution outright does is hide it from view. It doesn't help people get the rights they deserve. In fact it takes away the right to be a prostitute if you want to. The only line of arguing that prostitution should be illegal is either because we should outlaw anything we deem immoral, or because somehow concocted a right that prevents people from doing what they want to do.
In my opinion the basis for any system of law ought to be that people can do what they want to. The only exceptions being when doing so infringes on the right of others. I should be free to be a prostitute. I should not be free to force other people to be prostitutes against their will. I should be free to wildly swing my arms. I should not be free to punch someone in the face.
Of course everyone has their own opinion of what the law should be and so we end up with a patchwork of intentions -- let alone how the law actually gets applied. That's fine. People are free to have opinions.
Either laws are written based on morality, or laws are written based on rights. You can't have both without being inconsistent.
The important part here is if you include economic factors into "against their will" or not.
Also, how are we supposed to reach gender equality if one gender's body is for sale as a matter of routine ?
Note that I still agree with your point on being a cleaner, that's why I think universal income is a good idea.
At the end of the day when an adult makes the decision to do a particular job because it pays better than the alternative we can't automatically count them as a "victim". It robs people of their agency and infantilizes them.
Not in the sense of "They'll murder my family if I don't" but just choosing to do it out of her own free will.
I chatted to a prostitute in Thailand, she came from the poor North to work as a sex worker in Bangkok and she was fairly proud of the fact she was sending so much money home to her parents, living in a village where pretty much the only thing you can do is farm.
She showed me a picture of the car her dad was able to buy and kept stressing "it's a 4 door!". She was a genuinely happy and fun loving girl.
To me the shocking thing in this story is a man driving around in a car paid for by his daughter by fellating 300+ men per year, but not the fact this girl decided to do this for a living.
> Do you think murder is immoral?
The story of Armin Meiwes comes to mind, who killed and ate a man who volunteered to have done that to him. There's also the concept of consensual homicide
Much legislation is technocratic and hides its moralism, but it’s all questions of right and wrong, good and bad, at the end of the day.
Still, someone can be wronged with their consent. Consent is not binary. That's why there are minimum salary laws for instance : so that there's not a competition to the bottom.
When it comes to prostitution, the fact that huge numbers of prostitutes are former victims of abuse, for instance, should tell you that something is wrong. And even then, I would say that the minority who could be unambiguously considered to be doing it voluntarily is doing a disservice to women and society in general, by promoting the idea that bodies and what is most intimate can be for sale.
Edit: Actually I retract this comment. You bring an interesting point, and shouldn't be downvoted. I guess the argument "to prevent abuse" includes "to prevent people from exchanging their lives for money". And you could say the same for sex - people should be able to choose to have sex / be murdered / donate their organs, but shouldn't be able to exchange that for money.
I guess the counterargument would be, that the exact definition of "exchange" depends on whether you're actually giving something - arguably, you're giving up your life / kidney (and most people aren't willing to give that up, regardless of whether they're being paid or not), but not necessarily giving up sex (and many people are giving it up pretty often... the only difference is, are they also getting paid for it, or not).
Pushing this underground will hurt nothing but victims in the long run. Is that moral? Of course not.