Regulating Sex Work in Medieval Europe

Selling weapons to ISIS is not a crime then?

Reading some psychological literature a picture quickly emerges that answers your question: firstly because there are all sorts of social norms around this, that encourage power plays. The norms are mostly around not doing this, that make both parties to the agreement vulnerable to all sorts of issues before, during and afterwards.

For instance, videotaping the action and then blackmailing people with it. Or otherwise causing trouble outside of the direct transaction. And of course, the other side of it, "services" to prevent that from happening outside of the legal system.

Also I feel like I'm pointing out something that's both disgusting and obvious, but I feel like it needs pointing out. More than a bit of sex is painful. For both sexes, but especially for women. There are reasons for that, which boil down to there being a limit to how much friction skin can take, no matter the amount of lubrication (which obviously doesn't tend to be 100% in order, because while you are "the best ever", so is everyone else). This means that sex work other than perhaps really high class escorts is not voluntary, and even then ... It also means that sex workers quickly gravitate to other options than direct intercourse, of which there are thankfully many.

But making matters worse, this is not the sort of activity that is executed in the calmest and politest of settings, and by it's nature does not promote reasoned discussion. Or to put it more to the point: you're going to get hit hard, accidentally, and you're going to get beaten up, non-accidentally, and you're going to have to beat up people. It's just going to happen. Also, the whole point is to let self-control go for at least a while, which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop, say, twisting an arm until a certain event that may take a minute or two to occur.

Thirdly, like anything that involves a lot of endorphins, you can get addicted to it. It can get bad: you can literally get addicted to the pain of overdoing it (as in people who cut themselves open during sex, sometimes without telling the "other side of the transaction" they're going to do this). Even in much milder cases, it's still going to cause abuse and violence.

Do you genuinely not understand, or do you just disagree with such laws? People in favor of such laws generally does not consider such actions victimless. For example a historically rational reason to regulate or outlaw prostitution was to curb the spread of venereal diseases.

It's just an interesting historical perspective, they don't have a heavy-handed agenda or anything. Augustine's perspective is interesting:

> Remove prostitutes from human affairs and you will destroy everything with lust.

I might be wrong, but it was my understanding that sex work was a legal and regulated activity in only some parts of Europe, but it's indeed not illegal on most of the countries.

Something like cannabis in Amsterdam, where the police just turns a blind eye that most people even think is completely legal.

This was my first thought too.

> medieval examples suggest that what’s important is not just legal status but how regulations affect workers’ ability to control their working conditions.

Do we really need medieval examples? Surely this is evident in modern examples too?

I think its useful for taking the emotion out of it, and to be reminded that this is an issue we've been dealing with for a long time.

Also this is when red light districts originated, a model still common in Europe today.

Important to note that while the work itself is not illegal it's usually surrounded by a minefield of things that are illegal, such as "running a brothel" or "soliciting". In extreme cases two women sharing a flat posessing condoms could be deemed a brothel and prosecuted.

I’d like to see the industry regulated and that it’s practioners are required to obtain certification, or at least optionally so.

This would not resolve all issues, but you could at least have the option to see a practioner who has done a senior first aid course and knows how to identify STDs.

More widely, I believe sex work should be absorbed in to the healing modalities and professions.

We drastically need to take a different approach to sexual wellbeing, because whatever we have been doing has lead to a sexually violent culture.

I believe the dishonoured / unregulated / unintegrated / unlawful practice of sex work is both a cause and a symptom of our culture’s worst aspects.

I don’t reckon it’d match today’s fashions.

Rocking tables are a pet hate of mine.

Maybe we could add ‘rocking table repair 10hrs a week’ to this list of items that allow you to fulfill the requirements to obtain welfare.

And / or it could be an option for those sentenced community service by the courts.

I imagine a lot of it is that floors are likely much flatter these days.

Interesting you say that. When I grew up I was always told that four legged furniture was more stable than three legged ones. Three legged stools/tables were common (but not chairs I think) when I grew up and I was always cautioned against toppling. It could be because three legged furniture created a virtual triangle shape (Even if the top of the furniture itself was not a triangle, circular ones were very common) and when one puts weight on the side of the base of the triangle, like siting on the edge, the furniture is more likely to topple than a similar action on a four legged stool.

Is there a relationship between 3 vs 4 legs and total weight bearing capacity? Maybe the tradeoff was stability for weight of furniture? I’m also not sure that three legs is more stable, wouldn’t it be more prone to tipping over, unless the three legs are splayed very far apart from the seat base? Remember the issue with furniture is a desire to keep it from tipping over, not stability in 3-space. You’d get no,wobble on three legs, but if you leaned or swiveled too much you’d find out that stability was an illusion, because you’d failed to take the vertical component into account.

A four-legged chair for example, regardless of how you lean (within reason) and distribute weight will maintain 3-point contact with the floor.

Stability is a big issue for chairs especially. Rolling office chairs are afaict all 5 legged these days, unless you happen to find an old one. OSHA mandate.

Depends how you define "stable". Is it "less likely to fall over" or "less wobble"? That's basically the difference here.

A 4 legged chair is much less likely to fall over because it has more points of contact with the ground (yes, this extrapolates). While you're correct that a 3 legged chair isn't going to wobble, many would call it less stable because it is more likely to fall over. The force is distributed only across 3 points and if you sit at an edge that force is going to be highly concentrated along two points. In fact, those two points are always going to create a lever. In a 4 legged chair there are many edges that you can sit on where the weight will be distributed to three points, you have to be specifically on the edge where two legs create a plane to distribute the force to 2 legs (see why this extrapolates? More legs and it is harder to distribute force to only 2 legs).

Why 4 though? Well, I don't have a scientific answer. But it is pretty well balanced, doesn't increase cost much, nor weight. So probably just a compromise. Though in a lot of rolling chairs you will see that they typically have more than 4 points of contact with the ground (notice how much harder it is to tip these over?).

tldr: 4 is actually more stable in the sense of "you're less likely to fall out of the chair and bonk your head".

For tables: leg room and leg exposure.

Im betting it has a lot to do with construction costs, especially with chairs. Chairs are very expensive and difficult piece of work with tons of pieces that need to take serious abuse, more legs means more pieces. Also if you have even the smallest imperfection in angles or squareness on a 4 legged piece of furniture it is immediately obvious. Joinery is what takes the most man hours, so hose stools for example have 24 mortises each, add another leg and you got 32 mortises, and a more expensive piece with more points of failure.

Another thing to consider, the floor. How flat would most floors be at the time? 4 legged chairs would almost always be rocking on 3 legs, causing them to fail and break more often. Shimming a short leg only works if it doesn't move or if the floor is almost perfectly flat.

Simple three-legged saw horse:

https://www.toolsofthetrade.net/trucks-equipment/jobsite-equ...

Three legs are cheaper than four.

The floors were less likely to be perfectly level than modern floors so a three legged stool or table would be less likely to wobble.