Online adverts 'exploit homeless for sex' | Hacker News Reader

Online adverts 'exploit homeless for sex'

bbc.co.uk

15 pointsDanBC63 comments

It's rare to see the exploitative nature of capitalism being expressed in terms so stark.

This is not a stable system. We're spiraling towards ever-increasing inequality; things are bad, and they're only getting worse. You can make a law against this specific thing, but it doesn't really fix the problem. You have to change the path you're on.

In similar vein, you know those "happy rats don't become addicts" experiments?

I wouldn't be surprised if future generations look back on our current drug-problems as an issue with how our socioeconomic system provides (or removes) a sense of agency, security, and belonging among different groups of humans.

Rat Park (the "happy rats don't become addicts" experiment) doesn't replicate.

This phenomenon has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with the fact that some human beings are incapable of forming healthy, loving relationships. Heck, even Karl Marx exploited his maid for sex [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/14/opinion/what-marx-hid.html

My instinct is that this is not a bad thing.

I don't imagine there are many people who would be willing to trade sex for housing now who wouldn't be willing to do so if it were illegal. I would not anticipate that a law would have a significant impact on the rate at which these arrangements occur.

Assuming a law would have an impact, that impact would be to eliminate an option for housing for people who would by definition have very few others.

I certainly find this sort of thing distasteful, but the bottom line for me is that people own their own bodies and third parties have no business interfering with voluntary exchange no matter how they feel about it personally.

I wonder what would Amnesty International say - they support decriminalization of sex work [1], this article seems to pull in the opposite direction.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-ri...

The aspect of victimization that comes with sex work is really embedded into capitalist society. If people were not compelled to work (basics like housing, food and medical taken care of) then sex work would truly become a choice and not an expression of oppression.

Not to say it's never a choice, but we have to acknowledge the underlying struggle that often comes with it (homelessness, drug abuse, broken homes, no viable source of income).

... but we have to acknowledge the underlying struggle that often comes with it (homelessness, drug abuse, broken homes, no viable source of income).

Being a woman.

(I wasn't actually joking. Men typically make vastly more than women and housing is crazy expensive...etc. Anyone care to explain the downvote? Poverty has been well documented as being an overwhelmingly female issue.)

Thank you for helping me understand. I did not think from that perspective.

I don't know if I agree that it does. There's a difference between being in control of sex work, and entering into a situation that is potentially exploitative, difficult to exit, and might become unwilling in time. The article has one case, and I have personal familiarity of helping with another.

Like I said though, I don't know. The legal response from the article is a gray area to me.

I don't know that the article pulls in the opposite direction of decriminalization; you could see it as pulling in the direction of legalization and protective regulation (which is usually seen as beyond decriminalization), rather than the opposite direction. (Yes, I think the implication in the article is that certain politicians are pulling for criminalization based on examples like this, but that doesn't mean that the example inherently justifies that.)

(UK is already decriminalized, and actually AFAIK legalized but with minimal specific regulation.)

Title says 'exploit homeless for sex' - starts with a negative label. Then it proposes filtering out the ads, changing the law to make it illegal, etc. I think it's pretty clear what the author's view is (or what kind of sentiment they thought would attract more ad impressions).

The English law is a mess, and can't really be described as decriminalized or legalised.

The core activity - people exchanging sex for cash - is legal, but a bunch of other stuff around the activity is illegal.

Is this really all that different from when women would select partners largely based on whether they were "good providers"?

Humans have been trading sex for food and shelter for thousands of years. It might be slightly more explicit now, but I don't see that any fundamental change has occurred.

Yes it is different.

I could argue both sides of this. I was a homemaker and full time mom for a lot of years. I am currently homeless. I have turned down multiple offers to move in with some guy or similar, in part due to my concerns about how that can lead to loss of agency and can lead to someone being trapped.

I think the real issue is, as I have said twice elsewhere here, that housing prices are insane and this is fueling a general rise in homelessness. Things like that always impact the most vulnerable the worst.

I am for the decriminalization of sex work. If I were not medically handicapped and if I thought I could make it work, I would seriously consider moving to Nevada and taking up sex work to pay off my debts and come up with a down payment for a house. I don't think that would work for me personally and I do understand why there is a great hue and cry about putting people in positions where they are de facto forced into sex work.

I get why this is click bait, but it is hard to have a reasoned discussion about such subjects, for a lot of reasons.

Thank you for sharing details about your life. Sending positive thoughts in your direction. Good luck~

This article describes how some people's best survival option is to give control of their body to someone else. I think anyone with empathy would agree that's a bad thing.

I'm not saying that I endorse this; I'm just saying that it doesn't seem particularly novel. It seems to me that a double standard is being applied, with sex work being condemned more harshly simply because it is negotiated online.

(Mind you, this is certainly not the only double standard; it seems absurd that sex work is condemned as women "selling their bodies" while working in coal mines is simply accepted as something men do.)

I think most people are going to assert that this is absolutely different from marrying a good provider because people want to imagine that most/almost all marriages are nice, loving arrangements where both people deeply and sincerely care about each other. This is not true and pointing that out makes most people incredibly uncomfortable.

I am comfortable discussing that reality. But I tend to tread lightly because it tends to be a shit show to try to address that fact.

YMMV

That was part of my point -- we have a popular myth that marriages are all about love, but there's a significant element of practicality about them too... and there used to be far more. Heck, look at how long arranged marriages were widespread.

Let me put it this way, you are making one of those points that hits too uncomfortably close to home for most people to answer honestly and still maintain their own delusions about their own lives. So, you will likely be shouted down so that people can insist to themselves that they have True Love or something.

I spent about 3.5 years of my life in therapy with two different ministers discussing the sexual abuse I had endured as a child. I have an incredibly thick skin when it comes to analyzing such things. Most other people find me pretty horrifying and I have largely given up on trying to have meaningful discussions about certain things in public because they tend to inspire lynch mobs.

I think a marriage based on practical arrangements is often a better marriage than one based on some weird idea that we are madly in love. But, hey, I am some heretic, as already established. :-)

Yes, it's different. One thing is the fragility of people on the verge of becoming or already homeless, another is people (mostly women) living with their families or alone but no immediate risk of been thrown in the streets.

More inequality -> more shit like this.

This is a good argument for more actually affordable housing, which has largely disappeared from the world.

Only in some places.

There are plenty of places in the US where two people can share a (very decent, safe, etc) two-bedroom apartment for $200-$300/month each.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a single person should expect to share a two bedroom apartment in order to make housing affordable. Your idea of genuinely affordable and mine are not on the same page here.

Has there ever been a time when you could get something similar to a modern one bedroom apartment with amenities for the equivalent of $2-300? Certainly not in my lifetime. That would be something like $30-40 in 1970, $80-100 in 1980 and $100-150 in 1990.

No, but things like SROs and boarding houses and just renting a room used to be far more common. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs were torn down (in the US -- I realize the article is about the UK). In the US, SROs are now mostly slum housing for chronically homeless with addictions and mental health issues. This was not always true. They used to be a common way for a young person starting out to have a space of their own that they could afford.

Our expectations for housing these days is very much rooted in norms that grew out of the Baby Boom generation. That generation was a huge anomaly and the way it has shaped policy and assumptions is hugely problematic.

These are some of the nicest apartments where I grew up - they're $400 / month for a one bedroom: http://www.lindseymanagement.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?type=apt...

In terms of amenities... that price includes access to the golf course that they overlook.

If the landlords were just as poor as those desperate for a home, then everyone would be worse off, even though society would be more equal. The solution is to make society richer, so fewer people are desperate. The solution is not to remove one of the options that the desperate resort to. That only deals with the symptom of the problem. The problem is the desperation caused by low-income, and can only be reduced by increasing income.

Less inequality does not mean the landlords will be poor.

And wealth has been increasing at an accelerating pace, yet inequality continues to rise. The very poorest of the world may be lifted by capitalism, but not far and now those who were solidly middle class in the more successful economies are falling behind.

Increasing income does nothing if it is funneled into the hands of the few while the many are forced into prostitution.

My point is that it's the low income of those who can't afford housing that is the problem, not the fact that others have higher income than them (not the fact that there's income inequality).

If a causal relationship could be shown between reducing income inequality by way of redistribution by the government, and the lower income subset of the population seeing their income grow faster than it otherwise would, then such programs would be a viable solution to the problems the young people are facing, but only because of the effect it has on their income.

I would argue that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that all that things being held equal, the institution of socialist programs to redistribute income slows wage growth for all segments of society.

In all seriousness, a much, much bigger problem is the lack of actual affordable housing. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs in the US were torn down. This is probably a side effect of the Baby Boom generation growing up awash in relative wealth. There is a global shortage of genuinely affordable, basic housing.

With housing prices so insane, even a full time job can be inadequate to support a person. If we do not solve this, no amount of additional income will ever be enough. You can always just build bigger, more insane McMansions etc. until only billionaires can afford housing. The rest of us will be precariously housed at best unless and until we can reverse that trend.

The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material poverty.

I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing affordability these last few decades. From what I've read, most of the blame can be laid at the feet of 1. zoning restrictions and 2. ironically, rent control, both of which constrain supply.

I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a distinct issue, separate from low income.

I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices.

It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.

Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs are easier to bear with higher incomes.

I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?

I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest (http://projectsro.blogspot.com), but have already come across this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy):

The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980.

More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft. It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about 2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives.

In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and rent it or sell it.

It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few "losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.

What evidence did you have in mind? A casual glance at the predicament faced by lower income people in the United States, compared to more redistributionist OECD nations, suggests that redistribution (particularly universal healthcare funded by higher income taxes) can significantly improve living standards for those worse off. The first result I found when searching for 'income inequality vs growth', a summary of 2011 and 2014 IMF studies in the Economist [1], suggests that while redistribution may impede growth, inequality itself is associated with lower growth per person and therefore redistribution which actually reduces inequality is beneficial. It's hard to say that there is 'overwhelming' evidence that increased redistribution slows wage growth for those with the lowest income.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597931...

I don't have time at the moment to compile all of the sources I've seen indicating that income redistribution harms growth, so I can't provide much substance to support my claim. I'll just say that the decline in wage growth, and the evidence I've seen suggesting redistributionist policies are the culprit, is a Western-wide phenomenon, extending to Canada and Western Europe as well.

In practice, the suggestion would be to use taxes on better off to fund programs to help homeless get back on their feet, fund mental health hospitals, support education programs. However, cultural change and general public education also has to be part of the big-picture solution... otherwise legislation will be repealed next time around.

This should be legal.

The deals, which are legal, are on classified ad sites such as craigslist.

It apparently currently is legal. Did you mean illegal?

No I meant legal, as a politician in the article is quoted as saying they will introduce legislation to make it illegal.

It is an easy typo to make (like leaving out the word not). So I was just wondering, since it is legal already. Your initial comment was short and I wasn't sure what you meant.

Thank you for replying.

You're right, my initial comment was too vague.

This seems potentially exploitative, making it difficult to withdraw consent for sex, and would seem to fail to establish rights as a renter, at least here in the US, meaning they could potentially be kicked out at any time they refuse sex.

Yes I can definitely see a lot problems that can emerge from it, but making it illegal I think will cause more problems than it solves, and fundamentally goes against the principles of a free society. I do think desperate people are capable of providing informed consent. We shouldn't take their agency away from them (and if we do, we should do it officially, through the state becoming their ward).

Also, it's often the case that making it illegal just pushes it further underground, where people have fewer protections.

Yes, let's be consistent in our celebration of capitalism -- trading work for money and the wisdom of the markets.

How is this legal? It's just one step away from prostitution. The payment here is not $ but a penny saved is a penny earned. Maybe this is technically legal but it seems against the spirit of the law.

Prostitution is legal in the UK.

Oh, oops. Missed that.

Whatever happened to self-respect?

Self-respect is an abstract concept, and abstract concepts quickly become devalued when, for example, it's below freezing at night in winter and you don't have a roof over your head.

Rendered powerless by self-esteem and practicality perhaps?

Self-respect is a luxury.

I'm a man in my 30s with a wife and kids. If my best option to keep a roof over their heads was to have sex with the landlord, I would absolutely choose that over their being homeless.

Ah, the conservative ilk favors power structures that demean other humans. No surprise.

That shows no faith in me as a human being.

Plenty on the left would agree that this should be legal. And I think most people would agree that it's an undesirable outcome. The argument is usually around what the solution is.

From the right, it should be legal because we don't need laws restricting what two consenting adults are doing. From the left, it should be legal because this can be interpreted as a kind of sex work, and making it illegal only sends it underground and creates more dangerous situations for sex workers.

Hmm... I think that the left is split on legalizing prostitution. But most sex positive liberals believe that prostitution and sex work should be legalized in ways that prevents coercion, and this seems to reinforce it.

I mean, if you have a live in maid or nanny or cook, you may feed and house her, but you still have to pay her at least minimum wage, right? I think that's the difference between human slavery and a live in employee.

> Hmm... I think that the left is split on legalizing prostitution.

I remember arguing the complexity back in junior high - and my opinions on the matter have changed and become even more nuanced since then.

1) I personally believe that sex work should be decriminalised, with the caveat that:

2) Sex work cannot become an expected option for a profession

The reason for my second point is that there is a very short and very steep slippery slope from that to the stage where job centres will turn into de facto brothel funnels. One ugly aspect of being an unemployed job seeker is that turning down job offers, even those where you don't have the matching qualifications, risks cutting off job seeker's allowance.

I do not want to live in a world where such qualifications can be callously reduced to "breathes, has useful orifice(s)".

Please don't use HN for ideological battle. If a comment is wrong, explain why thoughtfully; don't up the ante.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14103023 and marked it off-topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com