Hacker News Reader

Comment by vorpalhex | Hacker News Reader

I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse. There is no safe way to do sex work that doesn't result in problems. Therefore they believe it should be discouraged and made illegal, the same way many progressives believe firearms should be illegal since they are dangerous.

Tribal groups are alive and well, and even if you dislike your opposing one you should try to at least understand their motives if only for selfish reasons.

View on HN

Many religious conservatives aren't worried about the safety of sex workers. They believe the act is sin and shouldn't be tolerated in any context. Nevermind the fact that many religious historical figures were themselves prostitutes.

Many conservatives, regardless of religion, believe sex work damages the traditional nuclear family structure. This is similar to the Roman decadence argument.

Many liberals believe sex work is degrading to women. Nevermind the fact that legalizing it would empower workers, make it safer, and decrease trafficking. Nevermind the entire LGBT spectrum.

There is entrenched opposition from all points on the spectrum. It's maddening that "vices" like sex and drugs that don't hurt anyone are so denigrated.

The time is overdue for moving past these taboos.

Removing taboos around drug use has at best mixed results in, eg, Seattle and Portland.

Perhaps there’s a reason that past societies invented the taboos to begin with.

I'm not sure it is this. Instead, I think it is that conservatives think that sex work is fundamentally immoral and that therefore it cannot be accepted by society, regardless of any harm or benefit created by this policy. It isn't "hey we believe that sex workers fundamentally cannot be protected from abuse" like something like child labor but is instead "sex work is moral degeneracy and must be stopped."

You’re not following their logic through:

“Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms — which we’ve learned over time and encoded into our traditions. That things they call “moral degeneracy” fundamentally are harmful to a healthy society and to the people involved.

That is, they think sex work is harmful to the people who participate and those nearby (eg, children of sex workers).

Morality isn’t merely arbitrary and capricious rules, but an evolved code of conduct which tries to avoid things that are harmful. (Or at least, were — eg, prohibitions on pork.)

Well, the modern conservative movement is an alliance of several groups.

Some conservatives get from sex work to prohibition via moral degeneracy - perhaps they'll want strong moral fibre from their politicians and oppose all forms of corruption.

Other conservatives reason via religion - perhaps they'll also oppose teaching evolution, and support 'in god we trust' signs in classrooms.

Still other conservatives don't really care either way about prostitution, but have strong opinions on guns or taxes and kinda tolerate the rest of the conservative platform.

And there are even conservatives who think the state has no business regulating what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors, and the smaller and less intrusive a state is the better; and they're frankly embarrassed their fellow conservatives are inviting the state into the bedroom.

> “Moral degeneracy” is a problem (in their view) because of the associated harms

You're assuming the social conservative subscribes to a consequential ethics system. But a social conservative subscribing to deontological ethics is more likely, particularly if they're a religious social conservative.

Not so. Consider gay sex. Conservatives consider this to be "moral degeneracy" and seek to ban things like gay marriage or even gay sex altogether. Occasionally, conservatives will claim this is about protecting gay people from disease but this is obviously a lie because

1. they never exclude gay women

2. they don't actually follow through on other policies to prevent STDs in the gay community and even frequently consider things like HIV to be divine judgement

It becomes clear that the concern about "moral degeneracy" is not at all related to a desire to keep gay people from experiencing harm.

Similarly, the concern about "moral degeneracy" related to sex work is not at all related to a desire to keep sex workers from experiencing harm. Instead it is about "protecting" society from what they perceive to be evil harlots.

I thought they believed sex work is fundamentally sinful and that's why it should be banned. I guess we talked to different conservatives.

Freedom of religion was supposed to be a thing in the US. Sin is not a good reason to make a law that binds those who don't follow the same religion

The first amendment restricts congress, not voters. Voters are free to vote for whatever politician they like for whatever reason they like, including religious reasons. The constitution does not demand that religious citizens demarcate and compartmentalize their religious and civic beliefs when they go to vote.

In theory it should restrict the representatives who got voted in from using their religious beliefs in legislating

It doesn't even do that. It restricts what kind of laws congress can create, not the reasoning congressmen use when choosing which laws to support.

Completely secular and constitutional laws may be enacted by congressmen that have religious reasons to support that law; e.g. religious legislator may vote for a law against murder because murder is against their religion. The first amendment doesn't regulate the thoughts and reasoning of legislators; religious reasoning for secular laws are fine.

And conversely, secular reasoning for religious laws doesn't make the law okay; a cynical atheist might say that religion is necessary for controlling the unwashed masses, but despite that secular reasoning, a law mandating a religion would still plainly violate the first amendment.

We fought a whole war to end chattel slavery because a movement largely composed of pious Christians believed it to be sinful.

There was also a large amount of Christians who thought slavery was permitted by the Bible so I don't think that argument has a leg to stand on

What argument? The point is that everybody votes based on their particular opinions of what is moral or immoral, often related to their religious beliefs, this is not a new phenomenon, and it is not at odds with freedom of religion.

The point is not that all religious reasoning leads to constitutional laws; that is obviously false. The point is that religious reasoning dos not necessarily lead to unconstitutional laws.

> they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse

More like they believe sex work is inherently immoral and therefore sex workers deserve abuse.

That is easily the most wildly inaccurate categorization of conservative positions on sex work I have ever, and am ever likely to, encounter. Conservatives (in the US anyway) view sex work as grossly amoral and sex workers as sub-human and a threat to the community. Collectively they don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about sex worker safety, they just want it banned outright through any means necessary.

Fact. "for their own safety" is just the sales pitch / cover story.

Opinions vary. Certainly many people, not just conservatives would think that sex work is immoral. I don't believe I've ever met someone that believes sex workers are subhuman, that reeks of hyperbole. The perception of sex work as a threat to community is probably wider spread still, in its current form it certainly isn't conducive to safety for anyone involved.

Overall, you're simply setting up a strawman that poorly characterizes your opponents. There are many reasons why someone would oppose sex work, including concern over the safety of the sex workers. Even if it were fully legalized and regulated there would still be significant risk when you have two people who don't know each other well in a room alone together and questions of sex and money are money are involved. Especially if it is a physically stronger man with a woman. The more cogent arguments take that into consideration along with the other effects such as sex workers becoming trapped in the occupation, the poor prospects for aging workers to earn an income or be able to retire, the second order effects on the community which are poorly understood but could be far reaching, economic effects of making the occupation more available to the working age population who might otherwise pursue other careers, etc. All of that generally lines up with the conservative take on any change which is to ask "Are you sure you have considered all of the consequences?" and "Do the benefits outweigh the costs both short term and long term?".

Really well thought out reply. Thanks for taking the time to write this, it really helped me understand conservative positions on not legalizing prostitution

Prostitution has been legal in Amsterdam since 2000, so a good percentage of the current sex workers were born into that world. Has someone done a case study on the long term effects?

I'd be interested to know, it's worth reading up on.

It reeks of hyperbole you say? I invite you to attend services at the Southern Baptist church of your choosing and then try bringing up the topic of sex workers after services. Depending on where you attempt this you might make it to your car under your own power.

Your claim that I'm advancing a strawman argument here strongly suggests to me that you may not have a solid grasp on conservative attitudes on this topic. I assure you Alabama (for example) exists, and it's residents absolutely have opinions about things.

You said, and I quote:

> Conservatives (in the US anyway) view sex work as...

You did not specify Southern Baptist church members, which I am sure form a part of the entire set of conservatives in the US but do not solely comprise it. I'm also sure that Alabama doesn't consist of 100% conservative leaning people nor do I believe that all of its conservatives share the same opinions. Please try to think clearly, I don't have time to correct all of your statements.

From the parent:

"I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse."

Having established that you don't refute my claim that (at minimum) large portions of the conservative constituency take a militantly hard line on the topic of sex work that puts us a lot closer to "well, I knew this guy once who claimed to be a conservative that also said this thing once" than "the conservative position on sex work is X". If you insist I can absolutely compile a list of links of everything from "religious leaders" to pundits and politicians openly railing against sex workers. Your sassy banter doesn't impress.

I actually grew up in a Southern Baptist church, worked in it for a few years and still ocassionally interact with that community.

First of all it's a diverse community, both in skin color and in national origin. Second, I have never seen any member of that group do any worse than engage in debate. That you "might not make it to your car" is such hilarious hyperbole that it's bordering on satire.

That sex work is dangerous, leads to the abuse of women and often times is associated with sex trafficking is their view. They will tell you that. Some of the people, at least from my families church, were sex trafficking victims. Many of them help support and house battered women, help provide rape counseling on a weekly basis, and otherwise certainly have at least anecdotal reasons for their beliefs.

You aren't the only one here who grew up in a Southern Baptist church and buddy I see you over there pretending the 700 club isn't a thing. I've seen fist fights break out during funeral services on more than one occasion so don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining.

Framing something in moral terms breeds desire for punishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com