Hacker News Reader

Comment by kefka | Hacker News Reader

How is prostitution any different than selling our bodies to work in a factory, or construction, or retail, or ....

Our bodies wear down and tire doing non-sexual labor. What makes sexual labor so horrid? As long as we do safe procedures (condoms, dental dams, etc.), there shouldn't be any problems with labor of a sexual nature.

It's always better if you like your job. A lot of us do programming, or designing systems, or administration. We enjoy it. There's also people who like sex. I know a few, and they have made more in the sex industry.

The only real problems are disease and abuse. Disease is obvious, but "owners" like pimps and such are big problems. We don't accept this in standard employment.

And yes, sex for money for both genders is pretty awesome. It bypasses the whole mating ritual, and makes very clear expectations up front. And once done, the transaction is completed. Regular relationships can, and will get messy. I can certainly understand why some would not want to venture down that avenue in their point of life.

View on HN

> What makes sexual labor so horrid?

Religion, especially Christendom and it's various strains. Before that in many cultures, sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

You can see it on TV. Take DareDevils TVSeries, but I'm sure you'll find many examples, there are countless raw violence scenes for free, but 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss. It's okay to display violence, no one will argue, but displaying explicit sex scenes... Well that's a no-no :-)

We have more than a few remnants from the dark ages.

EDIT: There's this amazing song by an Italian cantautor called "Fabrizio De Andre". The story (lyrics) are spectacular, full of everyday life wisdom. You can read an English translation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysydBLMSbRs

I find the moral outrage against sex by my fellow Christians to be a perversion of the teachings of Jesus.

Two C.S. Lewis quotes on the subject:

"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins."

"...a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute."

The desire for sex is ingrained in human nature, and so long as people can pay for things, sex will be one of the things they pay for. If we can reduce the number of victims by making it legal and regulating it, then I'm all for it. But, at the same time, I'd consider myself a failure as a moral guide if my daughter chose it as a career.

Would you consider it more of a failure than if she spent her life working minimum wage fast food jobs and watching TV?

One of the issues around sex work, even in countries where it is legal is how the stigma associated with sex work leads to increased negative outcomes for sex workers.

It is really easy to understand why Christianity abhors sex. Sex is the most private act we do as humans. If you can control how, when, and with whom you make sex, then you have huge control over the whole life of a person. That's why the Christian church is so adamant at defining what is good or bad in terms of sexual behavior.

I don't believe that's why Christians abhor sex. I think it's just that they were raised in a sex-anxious environment, and they've come to proliferate that internal response to sex.

I think they have an internal feeling of right versus wrong, and then they seek out belief structures that justify their feelings.

Christians do not abhor sex. Christians are taught to abhor sex outside of a marital relationship.

That means all this psychological discussion of "feeling dirty" and "justifying their feelings" is attacking a straw man fallacy.

You're saying that you think Christians don't feel anxious about sex because they are taught to abhor sex outside of marriage?

I think that is a weak reframing of the breadth of sex, and that sex for the supermajority of American people, in and out of the church, is pre-marital.

I think young Christian boys are taught that sexual fantasy and pornography is the same as adultery, a defilement of the temple that is their body. I think one example that's brought up along these lines of narrative is a story of direct divine punishment for the spilling of seed. I think Protestant and non-denominationals with sizeable youth groups form little sexual discussion groups, especially for boys, where they vent their sexual guilt with regards to their fantasy of the day or how they masturbated. I think American Christian parents are ever anxious about government discussion of sex, and that they backwardly expend finite energy to make it a political battle point. And I think American Christian culture is as much about the implicit as it is about the explicit.

But somehow your choice framing of the discussion is that Christians don't feel dirty about sex because they are explicitly taught that only sex outside of marriage is dirty.

Young boys and girls in the church learn the anxiety of the community and their parents first, and then they listen to the belief structures to justify that anxiety.

A straw man, by the way, is a misrepresentation of someone else's discussion, and not actually a logical fallacy at all. It is by definition outside of logical purview. Most people would be better off not ever hearing about logical fallacies, because it gets in the way of quality thinking.

Anyways, I want to make one last point about American Christians expending their precious, finite energy in politics. I say that there are 3 high consensus Christian political issues in America, in order of strength: (1) abortion, (2) homosexuality, and (3) sex education in school. The latter is the weakest, and mostly in state-level politics, but there it is brutally fought. Notice the theme of these 3 issues?

It's really kind of silly that these are the highest consensus issues for American Christians. Um, not poverty, right? Or injustice in the police system, and classism and racism in America? Yes. Let's discuss abortion, homosexuality, and sex education in schools (condoms detract from abstinence!).

First, that's not what I said. I said the notion that Christians are taught to abhor sex is a deliberate straw man argument. I made no claims about anxiety or lack of it.

I made no reframing of the breadth of human sexuality, because that was not what was being discussed. I did make assertions regarding the Christian teaching of what was moral in regard to human sexuality.

You then state a number of assumptions (prefaced with "I think") which are largely irrelevant. The story of Onan, who spilled his seed during intercourse rather than give his brother's widow a child as the Mosaic law required, was punished because of disobedience to the law. That had nothing to do with fantasy or pornography.

Christian teachings regarding sexual fantasy or pornography are all aimed at the training of one's conscience to avoid behavior that typically leads one to the societal norm of extra-marital sexual experience. This expands to a wider belief regarding self-control. If you routinely do something wrong, you come to accept it as normal, and are likely to continue where that path winds.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy [1]. It is the deliberate misrepresentation of someone's position in order to make it easier to attack. My opinion is that understanding logical fallacies (formal and informal) is important for conducting honest and rational discussions, so we disagree on that.

I tend to agree with your point about wasted effort regarding enforcement of morality with law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You are the parent comment are both right, IMHO.

Those are nice quotes from Lewis, but the fact remains that he and most other Christians would support criminalizing prostitution.

And although moral outrage against sex may not be in the teachings of Jesus, it's certainly in the teachings of Paul and other canonical early Christian writers.

I believe prostitution is morally wrong. I believe making it illegal is ineffective.

I believe the correct legal thing to do is to criminalize only the buying side of the transaction. If you pay for it, you are victimizing, and that should be criminal. If you provide, that's legal, but not moral.

If you actually read the article, criminalizing the purchase makes it riskier for the sex worker. They are asked to go meet people in more remote areas because the johns want to avoid the cops. This means some of them get murdered, assaulted, etc.

Decriminilizing it is about improving safety for sex workers. I think that is where our questions of morality should focus. People are going to continue to have sexual needs. Prostitution gets called the oldest profession for a reason: Even certain monkey/ape species will trade sex for goods (like food). Making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it riskier and that risk disproportionately negatively impacts the women doing sex work.

I thought decriminalizing it was about reducing it.

For that, the Nordic model actually works. Full decriminalization doesn't. http://mic.com/articles/112814/here-s-what-s-happened-in-swe...

I ripped Paul's bullshit out of my bible.

TLDR; I don't think religion is the reason for Matt Murdock's not having serious relationship.

Your main point seems to be lack of explicit sexual content on DareDevil. You are tying that with Matt Murdock's (loose) Christian faith. I feel somewhat differently about DareDevil and it's story line.

[1] In season 2, Matt had relationship with Electra and they _do_ have sex in the boxing gym. Creators of the show did not show it _very_ explicitly.

[2] Matt's discussions with Father Lantom in the Church is more spiritual rather than religious, IMO. They discuss about morals, right/wrong etc. Notice that Lantom always uses "God" and not "Jesus" (AFAIR). I don't think anything Father Lantom says is picked out of Bible or looks like preaching. Just his observations on life. I am a Hindu and I totally related to what he was saying. Never felt he was preaching or giving sermons. I feel, you can rename Matt to something else and put a Temple of Mosque there and still all that Father Lantom says will be appropriate (story line wise).

[3] Matt is very clear in his priorities. Given his "other life", he simply cannot afford to have a serious relationship. He states it at some point with Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson). His will "weakens" in season 2 and begins relationship with Karen Page before Electra comes in and sours it. With all this background, and no serious relationships between other characters, having an explicit sexual scene seems contrived and needless.

[4] The original content from Netflix in the Drama section has about 10 series. I watched 4 of them to a certain lengths. The amount of explicit content, particularly sexual content, is too much for me. Many times I feel there is absolutely no need for it (especially with Marco and Sense8). In that light, I feel DareDevil is much better for me.

Sorry, my comment is too long than I intended. And it digressed from OP and more on DD's story line.

FYI, using "God" rather than "Jesus" when talking about the deity rather than the specific events of the incarnation is not a sign of spiritual vs. religious, it's fairly typical of Catholic (and, actually, lots of mainline Protestant as well) religious expression.

[2] Matt's discussions with Father Lantom in the Church is more spiritual rather than religious, IMO.

I disagree, Catholicism is a big part of the Daredevil character.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/04/netfli...

As per this article, you are right. However, my observations were solely based on the TV show. I didn't have knowledge about the comic series, the role of Frank Miller in reviving it and influence of Catholicism in the character. Good to know this history.

I watched "Deadpool" on a flight the other day. It warned me that it was edited for content, and I thought "hrm, that's a shame, but given that there may be children around me on a flight, I suppose that's reasonable."

I then watched an entire human body literally splatter against a wall without censorship, followed later by a heavily injured protagonist standing up facing away, presumably nude because they blurred out his butt.

This is precisely the reason I do not participate on any social media site that bans bare (female) nipples. There are much worse things to see and read than the naked epidermis.

How absurd! How can nudity be an issue? We're all naked under these clothes.

This is also why I believe religion should be ridiculed and shamed until it drops this utterly false pretense, until it -all of them- come out and publicly recall the sins of the flesh.

It's as if children have never seen rears in the nude before. Not even their own.

Children must be protected from seeing nipples. There's nothing more abusive, corrupting, and unnatural than a small child encountering an adult female nipple.

This is a simplistic answer. Look at East Asian cultures to seem a much more sexual conservative environment. Try to delve into the why and it's complicated! As far as I can tell it boils down to marriage stability. Most people date to marry (any relationships that don't lead to marriage are viewed as a failure). Promiscuity leads to sexual insecurity as the less experiences partner fears not living up to the more experienced partners expectations. So this creates a strong downward pressure on everyone to not be promiscuous (and in small communities peer pressure is overwhelming)

I can imagine that historically prostitution was kinda the equivalent of becoming a eunuch. Sure it maybe pays well, but you typically won't marry (I guess unless your stunningly beautiful?) and you won't carry on your family lineage (or the vague female equivalent)

>You can see it on TV. Take DareDevils TVSeries, but I'm sure you'll find many examples, there are countless raw violence scenes for free, but 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

Or perhaps that has more to do with the fact that Catholicism is central to Mathew Murdock as a character, so it makes sense he isn't sleeping around given that premarital sex is a big no-no for Catholics. Also, we're only two seasons in, not three.

I thought it funny that in Dexter, where the protagonist is a serial killer who carves people up as the central plot device, the topic of abortion was shut down. Dexter gets his girlfriend pregnant, and doesn't even get past the first sentence before she shuts down that avenue completely. Simply not an option for even a minor discussion.

There was plenty of dialog in seas 1 establishing that Matt knew how to find and bag the pretty girls whenever he wanted.

There's an entire flashback sequence where Foggy gets excited to learn Matt uses his "disability" to woo ladies. He figures some of that will spill over into his lap.

> sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

Can you back that up with evidence?

"Because religion" is a predictable response, but I think there is more to it than that. This argument fails to acknowledge the fact that sex is inherently an emotional activity, while other activities, such as bricklaying, are not. The social aspects of prostitution, and the implications on relationships between humans, are precisely why it is widely deplored beyond religious ideology. Religion is not some construct of imagination, it is the result of human cultural development over thousands of years.

...3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

If you're looking for more, one might suggest the "affiliated" Hell's-Kitchen-in-Marvel-Universe-on-Netflix program Jessica Jones. Ms. Jones has a different philosophy than Mr. Murdock with respect to casual intercourse, which you might find more appealing. They appear to agree on plenty of the old ultra-violence, however.

>Religion, especially Christendom and it's various strains. Before that in many cultures, sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

Neither of those things are really accurate though. Christianity long considered sex positive too. Having sex with your spouse was in fact a legal requirement, your wife could sue you for not performing.

Most other cultures were the same way. Everyone having sex with everyone made for a pretty bad society. That's why there was so much focus on pairing off and creating a family.

False.

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods."[1]

1. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

What is false? Nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

> Most other cultures were the same way. Everyone having sex with everyone made for a pretty bad society.

The opposite of true. I recommend "Sex at Dawn" for a good treatment of this topic

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships-e...

TL;DR "Everyone having sex with everyone" pretty much maintained social cohesion in small societies for millenia.

> In opposition to what the authors see as the 'standard narrative' of human sexual evolution, they contend having multiple sexual partners was common and accepted in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.

> The book generated a great deal of publicity in the popular press, where it was met with generally positive reviews. A number of scholars from related academic disciplines such as anthropology, evolutionary psychology, primatology, biology, and sexology have commented on the book; most have been critical of the book's methodology and some of its conclusions, although some academics have praised the book.

You might try reading books by Frans de Waal. He makes a compelling argument that human biology suggests that monogamous pair bonding is a very long standing human tendency.

Popsci is not compelling. That book was eviscerated by actual scientists.

Most likely having sex with a prostitute is not your spouse. Also, as someone who was raised Catholic it was very clear. If you're not doing it to procreate you are sinning.

(disclaimer: I do not believe that view)

That's not correct, but is a common misunderstanding. The Catholic Church's teaching is that sexual intimacy between spouses has both unitive and procreative dimensions, and that both need to be respected.

For a deep dive, see Pope St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body[1] and the late Fr. Paul Quay's The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality[2].

[1] https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

[2] http://j.mp/QuayMeaningOfSexPDFscan

That's very interesting. It may indeed be incorrect but it is what my priest taught, it is what my teacher at Catholic school taught, and it is what the retreat I had to go on to get married in the church taught.

What does that retreat mean? What happens there? Sorry, never heard of such a thing so i'm curious.

A retreat is, generally speaking, a day or series of days (anywhere from 2 to 30+) during which one spends the majority of one's waking hours praying, reflecting silently, listening to presentations on some topic/s and/or attending workshops (which form the basis of one's reflections), and possibly engaging in one-on-one or group discussions (depends on the retreat's format, some entail silence throughout).

To lessen distractions from the cares of daily life, retreats are usually conducted away from one's domicile in some peaceful setting (mountains, coast, etc.), at a "retreat center" or some facility that provides sleeping quarters, bathrooms, meeting space, and a refectory. To make the whole exercise cost-efficient, a retreat is usually conducted for a small to medium-sized group, rather than for just one or two participants.

In the context of religious institutions, it is a fairly common practice to organize retreats for persons who are finalizing their preparations for a change in state of life, e.g. going from single to married, lay person to ordained, student to graduate, etc. The topics addressed at such retreats usually pertain to that change, with an aim to help participants better prepare internally for the obligations and challenges ahead.

Thank you for that explanation. I was surprised I did not hear from it as I was raised in a strict religious community[0] and never heard about this.

[0] Not sure what it would be called in the US but something very strictly Christian where you cannot do anything on sunday, not only not work, but also not drive cars etc and in are not allowed to have (own or use) TVs, radio's, computers and have special schools schools which teach them this kind of thing. Thinking (yes thinking), at any moment, about anything that is not allowed, will land you in hell. The ordeal made me an atheist at a young age, but I remember the teachings well.

Thank you, that was a better answer than the one I was able to come up with.

You go to a retreat center for a weekend (usually somewhere secluded, in the woods, on an island, a mountain, etc) with a bunch of other couple who are also getting married and you talk about faith and marriage. It usually involves faith and team building. Some churches will let you get away with night classes but the retreat is usually over in a weekend vs the class that takes longer.

Thing is, I'm not particularly religion and neither is my wife, but our family insisted we get married in a Catholic church so we had to go through with it. So I opted for the retreat because it got it over and done with in a weekend.

>Most likely having sex with a prostitute is not your spouse

That's my point. Christianity has long been very pro-sex, just with your spouse. As I said, you could be sued for not having sex with your spouse.

>Also, as someone who was raised Catholic it was very clear. If you're not doing it to procreate you are sinning.

That is totally incorrect. You aren't allowed to prevent conception, you need to "let god decide". But there's nothing suggesting the purpose of sex must be procreation. Again, there's a spiritual and emotional side of sex that is seen as vital.

That's a little bit of a technically. Saying you have to go all the way, so to speak, and you can't do anything to prevent it is the same as saying it has to be for that purpose. As a mental exercise, say every time you had sex you had to pull the trigger on a revolver that has a bullet in only one barrel. Sure there is a 5/6 chance you will be fine but who in their right mind would take that?

Someone can say it has an emotional aspect all they want (and they do, and it's true) but that doesn't stop the other part from being true too.

Note: I have a child and I love her more than anything. Buy saying you can't do anything to prevent pregnancy and saying the only way you can have sex if there is a chance you procreate is the same thing (unless your physically incapable).

>Saying you have to go all the way, so to speak, and you can't do anything to prevent it is the same as saying it has to be for that purpose.

No it is not. At all. Saying you can't barf up your food after you eat it is not the same as saying you can only eat solely for the purpose of nourishment. You can still eat for taste and pleasure. You just can't prevent yourself from getting the nourishment that goes with it.

>Buy saying you can't do anything to prevent pregnancy and saying the only way you can have sex if there is a chance you procreate is the same thing

Which has nothing to do with the subject. You are confusing intent with outcome.

I'm going to have to back away from this discussion. There is definitely more I can say but you and I are clearly on different pages and I do not wish to color my Hacker News account with a religious debate. Unless it is vim vs emacs :)

Yes, religion (especially Christianity) comes, once again, to mess things up. It is the cause of many problems we have today, and it affect us all, as it is deeply ingrained in politics and government.

I can go and sell blood, or work ten hours a day, or eat until I explode, yet I have someone dictating what I can or cannot do with my sex life?

Certainly more than a few remnants from the dark ages.

Christian thinkers have, over the past 20 centuries, developed a variety of views on when/how immoral actions should be tolerated by the state (and left to divine judgment) versus their being actively prosecuted.

There is a fascinating essay on the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas – one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western Christian thought – as it pertains to the toleration of prostitution:

Aquinas on the Practice of Prostitution

http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html

> 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

Wasn't there a fairly explicit sex scene in the most recent season (which incidentally is 2, not 3)?

Which one?

DareDevil might have been the worst example you could have picked for your argument.

I agree. Also it seems the opposite is true: most dramas on streaming tend to force in obligatory racy sex scenes.

Sounds more like a statement of the mores of American television. Violence is OK to show, but sex is a big no-no. Interestingly, the reverse is true in Europe.

>What makes sexual labor so horrid?

It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases.

And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to be full protection. There are some that are not routinely tested for and many people don't know about.

For example HTLV is a sexually transmitted virus that can stay dormant for decades before causing lymphoma all the while being passed to other people. In other instances it can lead to nerve damage. I wonder how many people have 'MS' when it is really just a nerve destroying virus nobody thought to test them for or that we haven't isolated yet...

And that is one that we happen to know about (but isn't commonly regarded). What about all of those diseases that we haven't discovered yet? They are out there.

Just because religion says its wrong doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. This is not an original idea but I think it is likely a lot of religious dogma comes from practical observation that was easier for observers to explain to lay-folk as the Will of God rather than as a probabilistic fact. It is dangerous to assume that people don't have a point because of the way that point is presented.

Putting thousands of chickens in a single pen (industrial mass food production) is also a really effective way to spread some terrible diseases (antibiotic resistance), and incubate new ones (avian flu).

Suffice to say, while this is a valid effect, it is not the actual reason the public has such a moral aversion to legalized prostitution.

Which came first, the moral aversion or the danger?

The "danger" may have been a motivation for the development of the religious motivation. But there were plenty of societies in history that had no problem with prostitution. That being said, its historical origin has no relevance today.

Historically speaking, the moral aversion predated knowing about any danger.

Aversion clearly predated correct attribution of the danger. It is not obvious to me that the aversion did not reflect a recognition of danger, incorrectly attributed to the supernatural. Any evidence or reasoning you can point to would be interesting.

How exactly are you defining a "recognition of danger"?

I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statement. And that, for me, is quite a stretch, given that I feel you are moving the goalposts in a very significant fashion with the modifier of "incorrectly attributed to the supernatural". To quite a seemingly intellectually and rationally dishonest degree.

I get the sense you are building your argumentative trenches behind your restatement of "correct attribution", which involves way too much application of modern knowledge (and forgiveness) to past errors.

I'm not "building argumentative trenches" - you made a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration. As any of those would have been interesting, I asked for some. I didn't intend to say you were wrong.

I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.

It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration." Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein? The historical record is there for you to interrogate and understand on your own.

Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here.

There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions.

I'm making no strong claims here. I'm merely referencing the historical record. A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc).

> I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction.

The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.

I have no idea why you are treating this as so antagonistic.

> It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration."

I can't imagine that you think you gave explanation, evidence or elaboration. You object to my characterization of it as "a relatively strong statement"? I can weaken that language, but you made a specific claim and I was interested in it.

> Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein?

That is a question that is answered far more directly and far more easily, to the point that adding evidence to the conversation is not terribly interesting. So, no.

> Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here.

The only claim I made was that I did not find something obvious, coupled with a request for more information. Your labeling something "my side" is confusing - my example was in pursuit of clarification you'd asked for, not something I am claiming happened.

> There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions.

This is closer to the kind of elaboration I was looking for, though not at all specific.

> A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare.

Much earlier - it's present in Leviticus and presumably predates that. I don't see that it's necessarily related, though.

> Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc).

Your timeline on "aversion to sexuality" is what I've had in mind from the start.

Regarding STIs, actual germ theory came hundreds of years after that. But this is talking past my question. It is certainly the case that no one said, "Hmm, there is an affliction spreading between people by way of sexual contact - let's tell people God will punish them if they fool around." That's Einstein vs Newton thing (or Einstein vs Ptolemy). That you think it relevant evidence confuses me. "The people who did X are the ones who got sick" is not predicated on any sophisticated understanding - it's the kind of thing that keeps people away from poison berries.

> The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.

You basically said the evidence wasn't there, above. I read your original statement as implying you had some in mind. It's clear that you don't.

I'm really unsure of how to continue this line of conversation when you're so unable to understand me, and so unwilling to look into something yourself to increase your own understanding and satisfy your curiosity. I hadn't been treating this as antagonistic, either.

I did not at any point say the evidence for my statement wasn't there. How do you interpret anything I've said as saying evidence wasn't there? I have now more than once said exactly the opposite, pointing you toward the historical record of human history. If you're interested, you can investigate it on your own. Look at religious texts. Look at ancient/classical texts. Look at antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look then to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the ever-expanding records since.

There is little to no historical evidence for your claim that recognizing STI danger predates establishing moral aversion to certain kinds of sexual practices, especially prostitution (the actual topic). You're offering a hypothetical and conceivable scenario, positing a great deal of modern sensibility onto pre-modern humanity, as if that has any explanatory and provable power against documented human history. We aren't going to get anywhere if your idea of seeking understanding is to suggest that some scenarios A, B, or C could have plausibly and conceivably happened, provide no evidence that this has ever been the case, and then ask for evidence that history did not happen that way. How is it that you think that is at all sensible?

Seriously, go read the texts available that investigate and document the history of human sexuality if you don't want to just look at primary sources. There is so much material out there. A Google search will get you going.

Moreover, I'm not at all talking past your question. I think you're expanding your question far beyond my original statement and may have your own idea of what it means to answer your question. Documented history of moral aversion to sexual practices predates any documented recognition and understanding of risk of danger, disease, and so on. This is my entire point. The evidence is in the historical records, which you can investigate to your own satisfaction. Documented history of many moral aversions often shows little rationale beyond establishing difference and power. My followup was simply explaining that, within the context of understanding the historical record, there isn't even a question that this is so. You are perhaps coming from outside that context. Fine. It's simply not my concern to provide a survey of the history of human sexuality, though you can tackle that topic on your own if you're that interested.

My comment about Levitical law concerning women's periods predating Shakespeare wasn't offered as a piece of evidence related to this, but as an example of a statement based on historical record that is beyond doubt, just like the Newton-Einstein example. How is that not obvious from the context of my statement? I say specifically that I'm merely making statements in reference to the records of history. Levitical law predating Shakespeare is a matter of the historical record. As is the establishment of moral aversion to sexual practices predating germ theory and understanding the danger and risk of certain sexual behaviors. I mean, from my perspective, you're making my point for me. And yet, you're saying it's somehow not relevant.

I'm calling it quits on this thread in its entirety - we don't seem capable of communicating in this medium. I find myself several times again wondering "how could he possibly have gone from what I wrote to that" and you seem to be reacting similarly.

I'm not sure how you can say that.

Look at the moral aversion regarding eating pork for some religions. It is completely conceivable that they saw people getting terrible wasting diseases from parasites from people who ate pork and came to their own conclusions that they were 'dirty animals'. Local authorities banned pork consumption. A few generations later it became necessary to describe why people shouldn't eat these animals and what made them different. There were no longer any examples of human disease people could point to so it simply became 'because God said so'.

Who knows if this is how it actually happened but we do know early societies attributed to the divine all sorts of stuff that seems silly in terms of attribution but wise in terms of action today...I recall a story of one village in SE Asia surviving a devastating tsunami because of old religious lore about what to do if the ocean receded.

> I'm not sure how you can say that.

Because available historical records are quite informative.

> Who knows if this is how it actually happened...

Given the available historical record, we do. Sure, we cannot identify every possible reason behind every religious prescription, but we can at least identify the point in history that certain moral aversions were drafted, and the reasons given for them by those who created them.

> It is completely conceivable that...

That some creative scenario is conceivable has nothing to do with its place in history or its likelihood of being true.

Just because some religious notion happened to centuries later be found to have a grain of sensibility doesn't in any way counter that, historically speaking, the known moral aversion predated any known danger. Many religious prescriptions are part of carving out an identity and social rules for its adherents. Hence casting them in a moral dimension, to add the weight of divine approval/disapproval to the weight of the religious source of obligation. They established and perpetuated power structures in human relationships.

>Because available historical records are quite informative.

Pointers to said records? I wasn't aware there was a historical play-by-play regarding how the dogma of today's dominant religions came to be.

1. Choose a dominant religion.

2. Grab the source material of said religion's scriptures and other authoritative texts.

3. Jot down the approximated date of said authoritative text's believed/identified authorship.

4. Interrogate the scriptures and authoritative texts for presented rationales. Admit these to be the primary offered reasoning, and the highest source of obligational determination for adherents. Where possible, include comparative and secondary sources that identify and illuminate social, cultural, political, intellectual, scientific, and philosophical understanding and reasoning of the period that may also be additional sources of obligational determinative weight.

5. Compare to known timeline of understanding physical risks of prostitution and other sexual behaviors.

6. Place everything on a timeline and see which came first. Trace the development of human ideas, beliefs, and knowledge through time.

I'm not making any radical suggestions here. This is just basic intellectual and cultural history.

You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition.

Further that there is a 'known timeline of the understanding of risks' -- IOW when, exactly, did humanity start to recognize some idea of cause and effect when it comes to disease.

You have to recognize that this is all impossible and it is perfectly legitimate to say 'I don't know how this happened but here is a plausible scenario'.

To say 'oh yes, this knowledge is out there and perfectly knowable' is quite radical.

> You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition.

I have in no way made such a claim.

There is a known timeline of human understanding of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That knowledge is out there, and the timeline we can build with available records is perfectly knowable, insofar as humans are capable of perfectly knowing anything based on available evidence.

That you seem intent on persisting in arguing the plausibility of undocumented and truly unknowable alternative scenarios makes for very boring discussion. Let's just say aliens did it. We cannot possibly prove otherwise.

Sigh. Yes, boring is the right word.

For some reason you assume people are implausibly stupid, and not just in this thread but as a general approach. It does make for very boring discussions where I have to explain things like this: I know when germs, bacteria, viruses etc were understood...I also know that the macro evidence of diseases were observed and understood at some level much, much earlier.

I made it clear from the outset that I was discussing the merely plausible, but you decided to trudge down that path anyway...I'm not sure why you are trying to saddle me with that decision that you made nor how your boredom is my responsibility.

Please feel free to ignore any comments of mine that you find boring in the future and keep out of that portion of the thread...I will be sure to do the same in regards to you.

This is an extremely poor analogy. Chickens are not people, and I'm not alarmed by chickens getting sick. Prostitutes , however, are people and forcing them into hazardous situations out of desperation is not okay.

The issue with chickens is that the illnesses or resistances that are bred within the chicken population can transfer to the human population, which is a human health concern.

Right the literal consumption of the good and those who consume it are of the only concern, not the chicken. Seeing as the consumption of women (treated as objects) is a key facet of this discourse, it's a particularly bad analogy.

> And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to be full protection. There are some that are not routinely tested for and many people don't know about.

Part of this was covered in the article:

> Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, along with other groups that support decriminalization — U.N.AIDS, the World Health Organization, the Global Commission on H.I.V. and the Law and the Open Society Foundations — acknowledge that there can be grave harms associated with the sex industry, but say that they see changes in the law as a precondition to reducing them. Last year, an analysis[0] in The Lancet predicted[1] that “decriminalization of sex work could have the largest effect on the course of the H.I.V. epidemic,” by increasing access to condoms and medical treatment. Governments can free themselves to crack down on trafficking and under-age prostitution, human rights advocates argue, if they stop arresting consenting adults.

So sure, awareness of condoms and dental dams might not be 'full protection.' But outreach efforts to improve safer sex along with legalization seems to be the better alternative to doing nothing.

[0]: http://www.thelancet.com/series/hiv-and-sex-workers [1]: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/28/5944597/study-decriminalizing-p...

In Australia, the rates of STDs in sex workers is half that of the general population.

Are you kidding? Or are you serious?

The probabilities of getting the diseases you refer to are much, much lower than the probability of suffering harm due to alcohol or tobacco use.

Now if you're saying we should also ban the use of those items, then I can at least applaud you for being consistent, if rather extremely risk averse.

But I'd bet that you wouldn't support banning labor involved in alcohol and tobacco assumption, would you?

Nope.

This is just irrational moral revulsion masquerading as a concern for public health.

Life is full of risks. Some we can ban, but most we either can't or wouldn't want to ban. We need to educate and regulate.

The thing about alcohol and tobacco is that it is a personal choice that affects the people making that choice directly.

The diseases can be spread from generation to generation. And the problems tend to be worse for kids that are born with these diseases than if they contracted them in adulthood.

I personally have no moral qualms with prostitution as long as prostitutes are making the decision freely and not coerced (even indirectly by lack of options to survive economically) into it. My point is that it is somewhat reasonable for people to have a default rule of thumb that says 'this activity is not a good idea and I feel some revulsion for it'. Kind of like swimming in stagnant, slimy water.

Legalization has some definite appeal -- I mean, if it is going to happen anyway (and it will) it might as well be above board so we can at least exert some level control and have society offer legal protections to those invovled -- there is some level of danger reduction. But legalization cannot remove the inherent dangers of the activity and the dangers are real and lasting and not as fully understood as some seem to think.

I was going to make a similar argument, except, I would have stayed with diseases. But your point is just as valid.

>> What makes sexual labor so horrid?

> It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases.

There are tons of diseases know to the ancients as spread through human action like typhoid, cholera, TB, etc. And yet, I can't recall coming across taboos against the infected. The only taboo I'm aware of is against lepers. STDs are spread by direct exchange of blood too. And yet, many cultures had taboo-free blood bonding[1]. That it can spread "pretty terrible diseases" comes across as a weak boogeyman. Contrast this with other, nearly universally entrenched, taboos against fraternizing with those who are not your ethnicity, race, caste, social standing, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brother

It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases.

But the thing is -- as demonstrated by the entirety of known human history -- people are going to find a way to engage in it, no matter what governing power structures may try do to try to prohibit it. So the bigger question is whether attempts at totalistic prohibition (as opposed to regulation) actually lessen the risks of disease transmission -- or make them worse.

Sex work is legal where I live, and prostitutes have less diseases that the general population due to regulation of the industry enforcing safe sex practices.

I'm not sure that's a valid statistics. Simply requiring that prostitutes are disease-free would mean that as soon as a prostitute gets a STD, she can't be a prostitute any longer.

To actually confirm that prostitues are protected/healthier, you'd need to track people who used to be prostitutes vs. people who never were, and measure incidence of STDs for e.g. 10 years.

From a Reddit AMA with a prostitute at a legal brothel in Nevada: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wxn5i/my_name_is_amy_...

Q: "What is the process of being tested for STD's? Do all of your clients wear condoms all the time, or is it up to your discretion?" A: "Yes we get tested once a week. Customers wear condoms for oral and sex."

One of the commenters says (about a different brothel): "You settle on a price, they inspect your junk for any visible diseases. Then you go to her room or a theme room if you pay extra for it."

From an interview by Salon with the owner of the first brothel:

""At the Bunnyranch, our girls get tested for HIV every 30 days, every seven days for gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis," he told me. "Then it's all condom usage -- even for oral sex. They're also trained on how to inspect a client. We actually have the Health Department come in and tell a girl what to look for. It's not 100 percent -- but by inspecting a man and making him use a condom, it helps take the risk out of it."

Hof said that the testing the brothel does is mandated by state law. And registered prostitutes are required to have cards signed by a health provider indicating that they're disease-free; otherwise, they don't work. Police check the cards once a week, and if the women are not cleared, Hof gets slapped with a substantial fine."

One of the girls claims in a 2014 Q&A post: "61. How often does STD transmissions occur in Brothels? I encourage you to do your own research, I did. It's a documented fact that in more than 30 years of state record-keeping, not a single incidence of STD transmissions have occurred in a legal brothel here in Nevada. Not one! Again, you're astronomically safer here than in your neighborhood meat market." As we'll see, she seems to be not totally correct, but close:

I was able to track down a study, referenced by a bunch of articles, comparing STD rates in the port industry versus Nevada brothels. For our purposes, the relevant quote is: "As of the late 1980s, brothel workers in Nevada have been required by state law to use condoms for every type of sex act and to be tested weekly for STIs. Since the implementation of these regulations, these brothel workers have not had a single case of HIV, and their STI rates are negligible."

http://mobile.journals.lww.com/stdjournal/_layouts/15/oaks.j...

I used to hold similar views, but the opinion of this person, who worked with prostitutes, really opened my eyes to the problems and started to change my mind: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/22/dissent-of-the-day...

From a economics stand-point, there's way higher demand than supply. And currently the only supply is another person. Most people won't willingly choose to be prostitutes when they have other options. Surprise! This big supply/demand gap leads to some very unsavory ways to increase supply:coercion and exploitation.

Maybe one day something like sexbots will change this dynamic, but until then the sex trade is a very difficult and tragic problem.

And you think that forcing the market to be a black market decreases the coercion and exploitation?

Simply legalizing sex work is not enough. We have to combat the social stigma. We have to craft regulation that puts the power in the hands of sex workers, not brothels. We have to put in place enforcement strategies that combat and discourage human trafficking (such as undercover checks of immigration status that provide amnesty for illegal immigrants while prosecuting those who trafficked them.) The solutions to combat exploitation and coercion are not simple, but making it illegal solves very few problems beyond allowing some people to feel morally superior.

As we work towards solving these problems, our position on the supply/demand curve will shift to provide a price where supply equals demand.

> And you think that forcing the market to be a black market decreases the coercion and exploitation?

No, I don't. I was countering the PC's notion that prostitution should be treated like any other profession.

I'm not sure why you got down voted here.

Thanks. Nor do I. You made a fair point to question how prohibition helps or hurts the situation. My comment may have implied I was against legalization, so I just wanted to clarify my main point.

> How is prostitution any different than selling our bodies to work in a factory, or construction, or retail, or ....

This sounds true if you have a choice of jobs. But with "regular" jobs, we accept that someone can be forced by circumstances to take such a job, even if it isn't the greatest job in the world.

Suppose a friend of mine is unemployed and complaining about money problems, I can imagine myself saying "So why don't you just take the job of a dishwasher until things get better?"

But I can't really imagine myself saying "So why don't you just sell your body until things get better?"

For men, we do sometimes suggest joining the military for pay - which has some parallels (very different but in some ways alike) as you're (a) selling your body to be mutilated or killed; and (b) removing agency regarding moral taboos, in sex work the issues regarding sexual acts, in military the issues regarding killing potentially innocent people.

This.

The strange thing is that in both cases we are often talking about vulnerable people (less true for people who join the army with a view to do officer training).

The images we have in our head for what constitutes as a 'vulnerable man' and 'vulnerable woman' are very different despite the definitions being very similar. Likely to get into crime, harmful use of drugs, alcoholism these are all halmarks of vulnerable people but men have a societally acceptable way out, the army. For women (who make up the majority of sex workers) there is no such option.

Why can we not see sex work as a genuine service to society not just for the workers but also to alleviate the anger and frustration of those who have difficulty getting sex otherwise?

That is a very interesting idea. I paid for university via a hitch in a line unit, and while it's not for everybody, I would not appreciate anybody telling me I couldn't do it. In my case it paid off rather well.

But how much of that is because of societies stigma, vs your actual perception of the industry. I'm not saying your wrong, I kind of have that stigma too, but I can't say wether I actually believe it or I've been conditioned to.

People recognize there exists, to some extent, a moral obligation to do work. But if we accept prostitution as "just another job", aren't we implying that people come under some measure of moral obligation to accept that job if it's the only job available?

For instance, people may lose unemployment benefits if they turn down a "suitable" job. I cannot imagine anyone would want to extend this rule to prostitution.

I can imagine people who would, if only tacitly.

It's not news in the UK that one of the side effects of tuition fees has been a big increase in student-age women funding their courses by selling sex.

You can argue whether this was an intended or unintended consequence.

But for anyone buying, it's hard to argue that increasing supply and lowering prices isn't a happy result.

I don't accept that there is a moral obligation to do work (in the sense of a paid job). Work is a practical economic necessity for lots of people, and it may be instrumentally necessary to some other moral obligations, but it's not one in itself. And, insofar as work is an instrumental necessity to other moral obligations or a practical necessity for survival, the type of work one is able to do being outlawed doesn't make it any less of those things (though it may make one's life much worse.)

Can men loose unemployment benefits by refusing a military job? In an ideal world, you could object both prostitution and military jobs by saying you find them immoral ("conscientious objector").

Social mores are full of exceptions. Killing as murder vs. self-defense vs. getting an abortion, for example. I don't see any reason why prostitution couldn't be lumped in with other exceptions.

>I can imagine myself saying "So why don't you just take the job of a dishwasher until things get better?" But I can't really imagine myself saying "So why don't you just sell your body until things get better?"

"Love you long time, five dallah" and the ensuing event takes three minutes which works out to $100/hr while the dishwasher makes what, %7.50? $100/hr vs $7.50/hr, hmmmm. I have known nurses and teachers who worked their way through college in the sex trade. They were incredible people who likely had no student debt.

I don't object to someone selling sexual services as a free agent. What I object to is the human trafficking associated with the vast majority of it.

Life is not awesome for most sex workers. If you're paying for sex, assume you're in the slave trade! Full stop.

Life is not awesome for most sex workers. If you're paying for sex, assume you're in the slave trade!

That's the war on drugs all over again: the violence and exploitation is mostly a consequence of the illegality, not of the profession itself.

Yeah, the world is screwed up in so many ways. How great would it be if you could assume every sex worker you paid for wasn't a slave?

But, I have a such a convenient solution, hear me out! We can just delude ourselves into thinking the world already works the way we think it should. We won't have to acknowledge the misery we perpetuate AND we can get our rocks off in the most awesomest way.

I would be curious as to where you get "vast majority" from.

One of the things I love HN community for is the overall interest in collecting and representing reliable statistical information.

The reason I am questioning "vast majority" is that when something is illegal, it's very hard to derive accurate statistics on. When something is illegal your primary sources of information is law enforcement, people who have exited, and what a few people involved in the activity will volunteer. Since the activity is illegal, few people who are actively involved will volunteer information for the fear of having it used against them. Add to that the stigma that sexual services carries with it (regardless if they were cohered or not), and people REALLY do not want to divulge information about their activities in sexual services even after they have exited.

Because of this any metrics derived will be very law-enforcement biased, or from a vastly small sample of the overall community. Neither of these are reliable sources of information. Just looking at how the FBI in recent years /reduced/ the number of statistics available on their sexual-service stings is a great example of this. It makes it impossible for anyone to derive reliable or trend-able information from the statistics they have released.

Here's a great article that explains a lot of what I'm saying with links to verifiable references

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/...

> If you're paying for sex, assume you're in the slave trade.

If you paying for a fast food burger or for an iPhone, assume you're in the slave trade.

Absurd comparisons and moral equivalence all in one! Let's all pay for sex!!!!!!!

I don't know. I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution.

But I don't think all work is created equal. Doing intimate and personal things for money COULD be argued to be such a mentally or emotionally damaging task, only people being exploited would ever take the work.

I think any work which falls in to the category of /no one would do it unless they are horribly without options/ is work that society should strive to eliminate.

It's really hard to make babies at the construction site, even on accident.

The downvotes on this are baffling. Is it so hard to believe that poorly educated addicts are selling sex on the side and getting pregnant?

Just googling a little: http://gradworks.umi.com/34/32/3432633.html

''' The vast majority, 19 of the 20 participants, had been pregnant as a result of intimate partner, rape, and prostitution encounters. The risk of pregnancy was not a concern for most participants. Participants rarely used consistent contraception with either intimate partners or prostitution clients. Most pregnancies were unintended, irrespective of prostitution involvement. '''

OK. Anecdotal, not random sampling, but it proves that "Just use contraception!" isn't a fair answer for whatever reason.

Anyway, the kids that are born to prostitutes are certainly not consenting and absolutely in a bad situation.

> The downvotes on this are baffling.

I hope ProAm gets some corrective upvotes, because they're making reasonable points in a polite way, yet all their posts are getting downvotes.

Sex work has nothing to do with children. At all. Birth control, IUDs, condoms, and abortions are all used to prevent births.

Now, if you're talking about paid surrogacy, that's a whole different area, and a whole different set of laws.

> Birth control, IUDs, condoms, and abortions are all used to prevent births.

Sure used, but easily avoided, and it would be a social and political nightmare to deal with this as a society.

It's easy to die, though.

Sure but insurance companies have already determined and society has accepted the value of human life. If I recall it averages out to 1.3 million (looking for evidence now) EPA has it listed at 7.4 mil

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Life_Value_in_th...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-epa-has-tabulated-the-val...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/09marsh.html

> Sure but insurance companies have already determined and society has accepted the value of human life.

Same for abortion.

This is not true evidenced by the fact it is a political talking point every election cycle.

Every point you raise is valid. I strongly believe it should be decriminalized. However, I just don't see it ever happening in the US. Why? Because women don't want their husbands or boyfriends buying sex from other women, and that simple fact alone is enough to swing any election involving a candidate that would enable it to legally happen.

Are you suggesting that keeping prostitution illegal is preventing men from cheating on their wives? I've not met many people who are so naive.

"62% of interviewees identified as having a girlfriend or wife"

http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/sites/default/files/imce/...

And every one of those things was targeting illegal brothels run by pimps in Chicago.

If the facilities themselves were gov't ran, with weekly medical checks and safety protocols, then I have a feeling things would be very different.

Right now, with prostitution being illegal, it is abhorrent and disgusting and evil. I'm thinking of the similar comparisons with Colorado and marijuana.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that women won't elect someone that will give their husbands an additional, legal avenue to cheat on them.

If you're in a union, you're going to be against scabs who undercut your price.

You make it sound as if Joe or Jane sits down one day, after finishing highschool, pondering life options and just come up with: Hey! I'll be a prostitute, money is good and if I am careful no harm should happen to me. It's just a job!

It is obvious that most prostitutes are not there by choice, by a mature rational decision. Most prostitutes are victims dragged into it by ignorance, by poverty, by drug addiction, by human traffic and exploitation. The psychological damage is done too fast too soon, rehab is hard if not impossible. In many cases they become pregnant and now they have another mouth to feed. If the kid is a girl, very likely to learn to do what the mother does.

It should be a crime! However, only the buyer should be punished, as it would be very unjust to punish the victim twice.

> You make it sound as if Joe or Jane sits down one day, after finishing highschool, pondering life options and just come up with: Hey! I'll be a prostitute, money is good and if I am careful no harm should happen to me. It's just a job!

Given that people freely choose very similar jobs (porn actors & actresses), it would appear to me that some consider this a legitimate and good life choice (plenty of sex, good money, good working hours).

Having said that, I personally don't understand why anyone would choose that life path. But I also don't understand why anyone would voluntarily go into the military. Different people like different things!

'some consider'

It is true that 'sometimes' a seatbelt is the actual cause of death but the huge majority of cases it does save a life.

It is true that 'some' people freely chose to be pornstars or prostitutes but the great majority of times is innocent teens dragged into it for the reasons already stated.

A law is made for the general case in spite of particular exceptions.

You argue under the presumption that the prostitute is there against their will. Assuming prostitution is made legal and thus brothels are allowed to operate under government regulations there shouldn't be any emotional or physical trauma. Prostitutes would become prostitutes because they would want to or because circumstances determined that that was the best way for them to make a living. Pregnancy wouldn't be an issue either. You know people become porn stars because they want to right? How is being a prostitute in a regulated industry any different?

Except for trafficking and exploitation (well, except insofar as economic duress is exploitation, in which case that too), all that's true of many legal low-status jobs, and trafficking and exploitation (beyond the economic duress of poverty in capitalism) are issues created of exacerbated by criminalization.

> What makes sexual labor so horrid?

It's generally exploitive of women.

It wouldn't be if it were legal and the women in question had access to legal recourses to protect themselves from exploitation.

The only way that MIGHT be achieved is if the "transactions" are all recorded. I don't think that the typical John would want that.

I don't see how that follows.

Simply making sex workers not criminals means that they can go to the police when someone hits them or steals from them.

Making sex work something that can legally happen in safe locations, decreases the risks that sex workers face.

Without video evidence, it becomes "he said, she said". If I were a sex worker, I'd want the video evidence.

So is paying women less than men for the same work and designing jobs to be filled by a married man with a supportive wife. Women get devalued and exploited in a great many ways. This is hardly unique to sex work. And when sex work is illegal, it just makes it easier to exploit the sex workers. It doesn't protect them.

There's a difference between selling your labor and selling yourself.

It's a business that fundamentally thrives on exploiting the weak. Similar industries that ride the edge like porn and strip joints aren't exactly empowering of women, and attract a seedy element from a business owner (and patron) point of view.

This seems to be punting on the question. Why is being paid to massage somebody's shoulders "selling your labor" while being paid to massage their genitals is "selling yourself"?

> It's generally exploitive of women.

You mean the same way as any other job is exploitative of women (and men) who perform it?

What does that mean in concrete terms? What makes prostitution different than other jobs?

Like I said in the other thread, you're not selling your labor as you do in pretty much any other job.

Here's an op-Ed from someone with direct experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/11/does-pornogr...

I don't find that article very persuasive in that she's making blanket assertions about large groups of people. Do "we" really consider sex sacred? I don't.

I believe that the article does describe that woman's experience.

I don't believe that article describes the experience of every sex worker.

We should work towards a society where people are able to choose to do work that doesn't impact them negatively.

If we were to make make the creation of porn illegal, we would cause more abuse, exploitation and shaming of porn stars.

for a lack of a better term, women become debased as potential romantic sexual partners. this is cultural and intangible, but isn't associated with most jobs, even if they're very low skill or status.

Women are frequently debased as potential romantic sexual partners. By rape, date rape, child molestation and a thousand other things. Your framing suggests you do not actually care about the quality of life of women. It implies that you think men deserve to have the cleanliness of women preserved.

In my experience as a woman, the cure here is to give women agency over their own sexuality. Decriminalizing prostitution plays well with that idea.

>Your framing suggests you do not actually care about the quality of life of women. It implies that you think men deserve to have the cleanliness of women preserved.

There's no need to play amateur psychologist in policy debates. You can make your argument without attacking someone.

It isn't intended as a personal attack. But I think the distinction matters. If everything is done for the sake of what men want and what women want has zero role in the debate, ultimately, it doesn't really matter what conclusion is drawn. It will still harm women.

I've found it's not effective to reply to perceived ad-hominem by propagating the offense. Your second sentence doesn't need a preamble.

>It implies that you think men deserve to have the cleanliness of women preserved.

"deserve's got nothin' to do with it." it has nothing to do with my personal preference, only cultural attitudes that are easily observed.

You don't think women take that into account before they go into that line of work? I don't see the exploitation - I see someone choosing a line of work with advantages and disadvantages.

I think you're missing the fact that the vast majority of prostitution involves trafficked/exploited people.

As this person's experiences illustrate, it's not about choice: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/22/dissent-of-the-day...

Trafficking/exploitation is made worse by criminalization (which increases risks to people trying to escape it), and counteracted it sex work has the same workplace protective as other jobs (and even moreso if -- like many legal jobs with unique workplace problems) it has additional, job-specific workplace protections.

So that does the opposite of justifying prohibition.

legalization exacerbates trafficking: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065

That paper has been criticised, e.g. by [1]:

doesn't measure trafficing, it only measures how many incidenses of trafficing are detected by the government. [...] This is important because we'd expect law enforcement detected cases of trafficking to go up under legalization, even if legalization reduced the actual number of trafficking victims. When prostitution is legal, victims of trafficing have less to fear by going to law enforcement (therefore making it more likely they will do so) and law enforcement can concentrate their efforts on prostitution operations that are still trying to avoid law enforcement, thus increasing their efficiency.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/49ivf2...

that type of disadvantage doesn't typically live with you long after you've stopped a profession. I see someone who needs money and may not be able to see the long term implications.

People don't see the long term implications of a lot of things. They don't save for retirement, they eat too much, they drink too much alcohol. Or smoke.

I'm perfectly okay with fathers telling their daughters "This is something you shouldn't do", but once you get the state involved you're limiting the freedom of people who've thought it through and decided to go ahead anyway.

to be honest, I'm in favor of decriminalizing prostitution. the question was what makes it different from other professions, and I offered my view. I do think it's particularly exploitative, but there's no way to draw a hard line for that as you illustrate. I think it's worth weighing that sex trafficking thrives in jurisdictions with legalized sex work, however.

as with most issues, nuance is key

"explotive" isn't a word and that's not an argument.

No its not the same selling your labor to selling sex. Because sex is something intimate. But your analogy is not wrong. When we sell our time doing something we dont like we also become prostitutes. There are things that should not be for sale, because they are holy. Time and intimacy are in that group. On the other hand making it illegal creates many problems and does not resolve anything. I personally think the real reason prostitution is illegal is so men are more willing to marry and to be under control of their wifes, years ago it was normal to go to a cantina with prostitues on it, and every respectable person was there. Back then the respect a man got from his wife was much much better also.

The only real problems are disease and abuse.

You answered your own question.

I have no doubt there are plenty of folks out there who are willing and eager participants in prostitution. Since it seems to be heavily associated with abuse, drug addiction and violence, society has put effort into stamping it out.

You have cause and effect backwards. Puritanical religious movements drove it underground which made it more hazardous that it need be.

Even in places that have decriminalization, prostitution is still something that is associated with desperation, coercion, and crime. You can blame religious movements until you're red in the face, but the research is there that shows that prostitution is strongly associated with mental health issues [1][2]. It's unsurprising when you're working day in and day out with people who think that they can literally buy your body and emotions.

Taking a look at any "prostitute review" site will show you what the men who purchase sex actually think of prostitutes -- feel free to imagine what having sex with these people day in and day out would be like.

[1] http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/FarleyVAW.pdf [2] https://www.collegium.ethz.ch/fileadmin/autoren/pdf_papers/1...

I don't think that's true. Over the years prostitution has been legal and even celebrated by different cultures. The religious reaction to the downsides is no different than that of the prohibition of pork.

Whoa, wait a second. First you say cause and effect is backwards, so prohibition of prostitution resulted in the bad effects?

But then you say it made it more hazardous.

Those are two different things.

Prohibition of alcohol certainly didn't make it safer! In fact it made it decidedly much less safe (people going blind/dying from methanol poisoning).

There were also other downsides, such as increase in gang power due to profits from alcohol running, sales. It seems like there would be similar parallels to prostitutions (gangs, pimps, etc).

In places like Australia where it's legal and regulated disease and abuse are not issues. Prostitutes have a lower rate of STDs than the general population and brothels are monitored for compliance with workplace practices.

I cannot agree more.

I think prostitution is a victimless crime and the only reason why countries penalize it, is because politicians are not brave enough to do it.

They fear to be labeled "immoral" or bad influences of some sort by religious audiences.

Prostitution as a crime, frequently has victims. Usually as a direct result of it's illegality.

I dont think its every girls dream to be a sex worker when she grows up. Its not about religion or morality its about quality of life. Its about humanity.

> I dont think its every girls dream to be a sex worker when she grows up.

Is it most people's dream to be a fast food worker, Walmart greeter, or street sweeper?

Tons of people work jobs they didn't dream of because they pay the bills, why is sex work so different?

Personally I think it's probably more about the emotional or intimacy factor that would put someone off such a career.

There is no inherent intimacy (taught, or otherwise) to working as a greeter or fast food worker, but whether through cultural or biological forces, I would imagine most people would consider sex an intimate act which would put them off pursuing it as a career.

> How is prostitution any different than selling our bodies to work in a factory, or construction, or retail, or .... Our bodies wear down and tire doing non-sexual labor. What makes sexual labor so horrid?

I'll bite. Sexual workers are among a very rare breed of "workers" who can make money from doing nothing, and this is what opens the doors to abuse. You cannot make money off a factory, construction, or retail employee if they just sit there and do nothing, you can however make money off a sex employee in that situation.

I think there is something fundamentally different about a sex worker that can't allow us to compare them to athletes or construction workers or other professions.

>Sexual workers are among a very rare breed of "workers" who can make money from doing nothing.

What? If I hire a prostitute, and they do not do anything, I would want my money back. If it prostitution were legal, one could consider suing the prostitute (although, like most scammers, it is probably easier to eat the loss then go after them).

Maybe you are saying that a sex worker could have an arrangement where they get paid for merely being on-call, even if no work comes in for them. However, this is not unique to sex work either. For instance, I have a doctor friend who does online consulting. He has regular hours that he gets paid for, even though often times he does not receive any calls during this time. I assume that there are other industries with simmilar arrangements.

I kind of interpreted it to mean "She can just lay there and do nothing while he fucks her!"

I am hoping I am wrong. Regardless of how it is intended, it is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com