Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldoughty | Hacker News Reader

The goal of the bill is not about bodily autonomy... The article makes it clear that the goal is to stop penalizing people who are very often victims (of trafficking or circumstance).

They are not trying to stop the trade, legalize the trade, etc... They are trying to make it so that those who sell their body are not 'locked' into the trade because they can't get a job, an apartment, etc. and escape the cycle of selling -> jail -> selling -> etc... Even if they get help, it's hard to continue your life if you can't find a job or sign a contract for a safe place to stay.

View on HN

Decriminalizing selling sex is something social libertarians and sex-negative feminists can agree on. But the latter, unlike the former, don’t regard it as a half measure, or think about it in terms of “bodily autonomy.” They view the female prostitute as the victim of male aggression. It doesn’t make sense to punish the victim, but it does make sense to punish the perpetrator.

You’re responding to a poster called ‘ldoughty’, not Andrea Dworkin. Who said anything about sex-negative feminists (or social liberatians, for that matter)

As the GP points out, the fact that buying sex remains criminalized means that this is, indeed, a sex-negative approach.

This approach is women-positive, not sex-negative. Here's an account of the awful reality of when prostitution is fully legalised: https://www.adoptnordicwa.org/uncategorized/insights-into-pr...

>adoptnordic

The nordic approach is a failure. Prostitutes are still marginalized, they're still stalked by police, and they still have to employ a great deal of subterfuge to make ends meet.

While I do agree the conditions described on that article are deplorable, I think the same kind of conditions would apply (if not worse) if prostitution was criminalized. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening.

Rich old people with college age boyfriends and girlfriends aren't going away. Sex is still for trade and always will be.

I’m elaborating on his explanation that “bodily autonomy” (i.e. social libertarianism) isn’t the point of the bill. Lots of people—in particular, most women, reject the social libertarian view that prostitution is acceptable: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... Many of those people, however, would agree (like Dworkin) that the reason prostitution is wrong is because it is violence against women.

The upshot of that is you can get enough support to pass a law decriminalizing selling of sex (something social libertarians and many sex-negative feminists could agree on), while lacking enough support to decriminalize buying sex (which only social libertarians would support).

the harm reduction approach actually satisfies both, but the latter group really have no purpose aside from “prostitution is wrong” and all the “becauses” are observations that will continue shifting because the goal posts only move towards using the state to criminalize transactional sex

Thank you for taking the time to explain, I didn’t tie bodily autonomy to social libertarianism when I read your initial post. I could’ve been more constructive with my question/post, my bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com