Hacker News Reader

Your first and third paragraph are what lawmakers in e.g. Texas use to ban things like anal sex.

Your second paragraph contradicts first and third.

I have no idea what the fourth paragraph is trying to say.

If I sound contradictory it's because I'm uncertain.

Let's say I, like the people running Iran, think a woman should have her head covered in public. It's good for woman, men and all of us together.

What are my options? I can decide that whatever the individuals want the overall badness of an uncovered female head is so great that preventing that is worth sending people to jail. Alternately I could decide that the goodness of letting people make decisions about their own lives is worth the damage that an uncovered female head will do to men, woman and society.

It seems like the rule almost everyone uses is "consenting adults can do things that don't harm non-consenting adults" for everything they don't have a problem with. When they have a problem with it they just flip the script by claiming it's not really consenting. It end up being the open sesame of public policy.

The other problem I have is that I don't think the view I described is right. There has to be a place we - society, the law, whatever - can sit where we can go, "This is wrong. Even if you agree with the action it's hurting you or other people but I'm not going to send you to jail. I'm not going to help you. I'm going to keep shouting from the rooftops that this this is stupid but I'll stop short of depriving you of liberty."

The problem with my idea is that people look at that and they say, why go to all that trouble for something you believe is that harmful when you have the power to take one more little step and stop that thing. All you have to do is put one person in jail. The rest will be scared.

Ever read "the ones who walk away from omelas". It's that.

> I'm beginning to wonder though if there isn't some space short of stopping a person from doing something

That’s why moral norms exist in every human society. Most people need some sort of support from society to make good decisions for themselves and their families. It’s no different than how an exercise or diet regimen is easier to stick to if you do it along with other people to provide support and yes shaming if necessary.

Intellectuals project their own capacities onto sex workers, and say that if they did sex work—which they don’t—it would be for “freedom of expression” and “economic rights.” But the fact is that sex work is like myriad other dangerous and unpleasant jobs society has seen fit to regulate or ban. Society seeks to create a floor below which people can’t sink through desperation or bad choices.

Society? You're painting an awfully broad brush. I absolutely think it should be regulated because of the reasons you name, but it's mainly particular demographics that want sex work banned, and generally these demographics don't actually care about the well-being of sex workers (re: provably negative consequences for sex workers in previous situations where such work was made illegal or otherwise deregulated and punished).

The “particular demographics” who want to ban prostitution include “the majority of women.” https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me...

Women oppose legalized sex work at higher rates than men, because they’d be the ones who would encounter social pressure to do sex work in tough economic circumstances if it became normalized.

> Women oppose legalized sex work at higher rates than men, because they’d be the ones who would encounter social pressure to do sex work in tough economic circumstances if it became normalized.

There is a huge leap from "the majority of women oppose sex work" to "the majority of women oppose sex work BECAUSE if sex work was legal they would encounter social pressure to do sex work".

I have women in my life who oppose sex work decriminalization. Not a single one does because they worry they will encounter any social pressure to do sex work. Almost every single one does because they believe that coercion is very common, and the downsides to criminalization are minimal. And none of them have spent much time listening to actual sex workers talk about the effects of criminalization on their lives.

The women I know who are in favor of sex work decriminalization are very similar to the ones who oppose it but have spent more time listening to sex workers talk about the effects of criminalization. They understand that there is very little additional risk to someone who coerces another into sex work b/c of criminalization but far more additional risk to the sex worker.

> Women oppose legalized sex work at higher rates than men, because they’d be the ones who would encounter social pressure to do sex work in tough economic circumstances if it became normalized.

I don't think that's the only reason; even a few sex providers can distort the (mostly balanced) market for sex.

IOW, if men don't feel the need to date just to get sex then there's fewer men in the market. This means that women have to pay a higher price[1] for the available men, while the available men pay a lower price[2] for any specific woman.

[1] Be nicer, be more willing to engage in sex, etc.

[2] Be less committed, less involved, etc.

If a man wants to date just to get sex, then the woman missing that dating "opportunity" actually just dodged a bullet.

> If a man wants to date just to get sex, then the woman missing that dating "opportunity" actually just dodged a bullet.

I agree, but that still reduces the number of available men in the market, which was my point.

Women are probably more likely than men to have their spouse cheat on them with a prostitute. I bet that's part of it.

> "What you're doing is crazy. Why would you do that to yourself? Why would you let someone do that to you? Why would you do that to another person?"

People who want to amputate perfectly healthy limbs and/or submit themselves to cannibalism are some of the first things that come to my mind here. Most of us would probably agree there should be a line somewhere, especially considering the potential of undiagnosed mental illness.

> especially considering the potential of undiagnosed mental illness.

Not a popular statement to make, but the reality is that the majority of amateur sex workers (e.g. OF models) have diagnosed or undiagnosed mental illnesses, many have been prior victims of sexual abuse. There's a strong correlation between hypersexuality and involvement in sex work, and hypersexuality is often the result of childhood sexual trauma or mental illnesses like bipolar that can result in hypersexuality as a symptom of manic episodes.

So, the question you are putting forward isn't completely limited to the most extreme possibilities. That said, I generally have taken the stance that if someone is able to turn a condition of their existence into something which makes them money and they do so consensually, it is not my business to stop them from doing so. There are definitely deeper and complicated moral and philosophical questions about that though, dealing with the nature of consent and self-actualization. Is it /really/ consensual if someone engages in sex work due to hypersexuality, which was directly caused due to prior sexual trauma? What is consent, and how does it intersect with mental state and competence?

Unfortunately, I don't think society is in a place to wrestle with these deeper questions. Mental illness is relatively commonplace, and we have created a condition of existence in the West which encourages neurosis, and often becomes clinical depression or anxiety, at minimum. Our distraction/attention economy fundamentally messes with people's minds... intentionally... to sell us more crap we don't need. It is against the nature of society to consider what the nature of consent is when you exist surrounded by various layers of coercion and depredation.

I think where the ship runs aground is that sexual things are treated as intrinsically amoral, because people feel its amoral. However, that feeling is no more legitimate than "green is the best color" (because my brain tells me it's the best).

Edit: Just want to add - Homosexuality has the same illogical hurdle. It feels immoral to many people, so therefore it must be immoral. People are largely unable to separate their lizard brain instincts from logical analysis. So we end up with gays being stoned to death.

Similar to what somebody else said, there are some reasons it's amoral outside of the cultural rules, at least generally throughout civilized history.

Many older cultural or religious rules had some root in logic (obviously some didn't). In some cases modern understanding makes those rules unnecessary. For example, cooking was not as consistent, and germ theory was basically unknown, so eating pork and becoming sick meant that pigs were unclean and not to be eaten. Obviously we now know that we can eat pork if it's properly cooked.

It's debatable as to the status of many sex rules. Things like diseases can become resistant to treatment, evolve to be more problematic (or create a new problem altogether), etc. Condoms generally protect against most but not all. Then there's the reproduction issue, which pulls in a host of other issues such as who's paying for the kid, abortion, etc. Some of this is covered by contraceptives, but not fully. And perhaps the one not talked about, is how it can influence people similar to gambling or substances. This is also up for public debate on how rules should apply to these things.

Because free sex makes disease and unwanted children, disease and unwanted children cause/suffer-from problems, disease and problems hurt society. This isn't just moral puritanism, it's for good.

Promiscuous sex and many partners irreversibly negatively influences a person's pair-bonding ability at a chemical level, this destroys the family unit and does not benefit the empowered singles and divorced 'pair-couples' we see today promoting this behavior.

Hastening the decline is not entertainment, I wish people would stop encouraging it for short term interests and look at the big picture.

Teaching safe sex is what prevents disease and unwanted children, not moralizing about sex.

There are plenty of well adjusted people who are either in open relationships or have no desire to be in relationships. Being kind and treating people with respect is what strengthens families.

- A condom won't prevent diseases or unwanted children.

- Open relationships do not strengthen "families".

The fact that you believe that casual sex affects pair bonding ability at the chemical level, but you don't believe that condoms prevent the spread of STIs and pregnancies is concerning.

Not all STD's need to contact a mucous membrane to infect

Condoms (and other forms of birth control or protection) seem much more effective than conservative morals at preventing diseases and unwanted children. Take a look at teen birth rate [1] (as a proxy for unwanted or at least unplanned pregancies) and HIV diagnosis rates [2] per US state. The trend seems pretty clear: conservative, religious states do worse at these metrics than liberal, more secular states. There are of course more variables than that, but at least religion and traditional family values don't seem to be helping very much.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbi... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/257734/us-states-with-hi...

There is a 100% guaranteed way to prevent an unwanted child, in half of the US states at the very least.

If there's anything affecting reproduction rates, it doesn't seem to be permissive sexual norms but rather poor economic and professional conditions that preclude the establishment of a family, in conjunction with the general decrease in fertility when a region passes a certain point of development i.e. a child becomes a financial burden as opposed to an extra pair of hands.

Ironically, the issues you list would be best solved with a professional prostitution industry and regulatory committee running the show.

As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet. "This idea feels right, and is consistent with my ideology, so it must be right".

"As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet. "This idea feels right, and is consistent with my ideology, so it must be right"."

Why do you think that? There are objective reasons for parents sticking together - success of the child and the economics of being in a pair tend to positive things. Although I will say that I don't know of any resources that investigate these on things like polygamy - they focus on the common stuff like marriage, divorce, and sometimes remarriage.

Sex isn't what makes people partners...

True. But given the practicalities it tends to be highly intertwined with a few exceptions.

> As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet.

I just want you to know your reply with the bible pamphlet thing was really stupid.

To address you directly: It's scientifically proven, check out Oxytocin and see about the pair-bonding facilitation it does.

I'm not a dummy, but today you spoke to me like one. You won't always get someone to re-engage you, and that won't always be because you're right, sometimes we're just too disgusted to risk further entertaining your disrespect.

That Oxytocin is produced through MANY interactions that are not sex.

I think you're replying to the wrong person.

giantg2 is a swell person, I wrongly maligned them in this comment thinking the quote they posted was their own words in a flippant context.

I wholeheartedly apologize to giantg2. However for the record, other guy above can beat it.

You do realize that's a quote, right? Like look at the parent of that comment.

Ah, you are correct, my mistake. I owe you one. I have edited my comment with an apology, out of respect and as penance for the slander.

Condoms exist. Marital sex also makes unwanted children, I don't see why you declare this a property of "free" sex.

The second paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that gets parrotted by conservatives. People have been and will continue to have casual sex, and society is, and will be doing fine.

Your last sentence reveals the real reason you're against casual sex.

I'm sorry, but all of your points are demonstrably false.

This. Prostitution needs to be carefully regulated or else lots of non consenting situations become possible and incentivized. Prostitution should be legal as it violates basic rights not for it to be, but at the same time there should be safeguards.

I think that is friends/family/social pressure is for. We don't forbid it, but people will look at you sideways if you drink beer at 9 am on a weekday.

> but people will look at you sideways if you drink beer at 9 am on a weekday.

This is interesting because it assumes everyone's day to day is exactly the same. When I worked 3rd shift, drinking beer at 9 am wasn't an issue to me because my 9 am wasn't the same as your 9 am. At that point, drinking beer at 9 pm would be odd because that was my morning. Also, my workweek was shifted so my weekend was Monday/Tuesday, so trying to fit everyone into one way of living is simply never going to work.

Ty for pointing that out, my example was bad. I think this is a good illustration of why being judgemental is not helpful. I completely missed why this is a perfectly normal choice for a lot of people who don't operate like I do.

Social pressure seems sufficient to produce most if not all of the problems described in the source article. Why are chargeback rates so high? Because the customer's spouse found out about the purchase and now they have to pretend it wasn't them. Why won't VCs invest in Onlyfans? Because it would be extremely embarrassing for a partner to attend a board meeting about all the great porn the company's producing.

There are countless situations where that sort of pressure simply doesn't exist, and likely won't in the future.

I also don't think the example you provided is a very good one. Perhaps a better example might be extreme cosmetic surgery (&/or body modification) addicts. Or maybe I should say 'enthusiasts'.

Yup good point, it wasn't a very good example.

> There's a libertarian ethos that says anything between two consenting adults is the their business. I'm more and more skeptical not just of that principle but the self awareness of the people who purport to support it.

The issue at hand is not a law. They have issues too, i.e. abortion debacle in US, but at least they are subject to democratic scrutiny,

It's the fact that an arbitrary and capricious decision by two private corporations or perhaps moralistic CEO gets to dictate cultural norms for entire society.

If visa and mastercard decide to block you, your business / income is dead.

Sometimes they will do it at a loss to themselves - like what happened with Tumbler - it was sold and new owners removed porn, started shadowbanning, etc. It is now mostly dead and was sold mutiple times at lower and lower value. Hundreds of millions were wiped out for the sake of marality police.

This while thing reeks of Feudalism.

> There's a libertarian ethos that says anything between two consenting adults is the their business.

IMHO, that's one of the libertarian oversimplifications that can make it a supremely seductive ideology. It's basically: throw out all the hard stuff and admire a toy model where all the pieces fit perfectly.

I don't think libertarians are against sharing their opinions or questioning someone's actions. They're mostly just against forcefully applying it.