Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prostitution in 2003

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by baddox on Friday July 18, 2014 @06:20PM (#8055896)

> Taking advantage of someone in that position is taking advantage of economic duress. Obviously there's no clean line as to how the alternative courses of action have to be before it counts as duress.

It sounds to me like your distinction is that if any person makes less money than any other person, then the first person is under economic duress and thus is incapable of making any voluntary choices.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by rayiner on Friday July 18, 2014 @11:17PM (#8056557)

You're vastly oversimplifying my argument, and reducing complex human interactions to economic platitudes.

Sex is not like every other human interaction. If you forced someone to answer phones for eight hours, it is unlikely they would be traumatized in the same way as if you raped them for eight hours. Its different.

Not every transaction between people in unequal economic circumstances is suspect, but we're not talking about every transaction. We're talking about something much more intimate and emotional. Such transactions are far more suspicious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by heylefty on Saturday July 19, 2014 @07:35AM (#8057224)

We're not talking about rape here. So that's a non-sequitur.

You're moving goalposts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by Crito on Friday July 18, 2014 @06:27PM (#8055918)

Ironically, it sounds like he has in essence devised a clever way of stripping poor people of their autonomy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti... by baddox on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:47PM (#8056146)

I don't think there's any dishonesty behind those arguments, but just economic misunderstanding.

[ Parent | on HN ]