News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by IanCal on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:52PM (#8055569)
> Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money?

It depends very heavily on the balance of power. You're talking about it like two people with equal bargaining power coming to a agreement they're both happy with. If that's the case then great, that's fine. I don't think that's universal though, or even particularly common.

However we have a large number of rules to stop exploitative working environments across all industries, and something as physical and emotional as sex should have similar or stronger guarantees around.

There should be ways of creating safe environments and regulations that allow prostitution, but saying that "prostitution is a victimless crime" seems very off. We can probably create situations where it is, at worst, no more objectionable than someone working an office job they hate. However, I hardly think that's a good explanation of the current situation in many countries.

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by heylefty on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:56PM (#8056172)
There is never a balance of power between the employer and the employee.

If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place.

Your argument condemns all employment.

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by IanCal on Sunday July 20, 2014 @12:18PM (#8060701)
> If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place.

So the employer needs no employees?

> Your argument condemns all employment.

Only exploitative employment.

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by saraid216 on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:43PM (#8056394)
I'm okay with that condemnation. Do you have a real refutation?