Hacker News Reader

Please don't make this into some stupid men vs. women debate. If you want to do something about men who are forced to take terrible jobs, go join one of the many labor rights organizations in the world. Don't slander people focusing on a specific kind of coerced labor.

Labor rights organizations cannot change the fact that shitty jobs exist and someone needs to do them. If you actually want to eliminate terrible jobs, become a physicist or a nanotechnologist or an AI researcher or...

It's not a question of eliminating shitty jobs, it's a question of ensuring that people get paid a living wage, or at least work in reasonably safe conditions. For most businesses, the resources exist to keep people safe and well-compensated, but sometimes the people at the top choose to cut corners and that's where labor organizations come in.

How senseless outlawing prostitution is? That's absurd. Look at the efficacy of the Nordic model. Prostitution is coerced sex in which a woman loses her autonomy, and in the case of desperation, her ability to say yes or no to potential 'clients'.

It's a very clear objectification in which not only is the work stigmatized, it's also not productive for the woman -- working in a coal mine is valuable job experience that sets you up to be able to do other manual labor jobs. You have references, contacts, etc. Prostitution does not afford you the same ability.

Men who take terrible jobs are disposable cogs? Is that why these jobs have labor unions, rights, and transferable skills? If you want to talk about disposable, talk about the women who are disappeared after their usefulness as a prostitute is up. Talk about the women who are in their late 20's with no work skills, who are ashamed to be around their friends or family. Talk about the women who enter the sex trade and their drastically increased rates of drug abuse and suicide.

> Look at the efficacy of the Nordic model.

The Nordic model is less efficient than decriminalisation. It drives sex workers underground, giving them less protection.

Legalization has shown an increase in human trafficking to Germany. The use of unions has also been stigmatized by the pimps -- sorry, "Brothel owners" to the point that they're completely ineffective. Surprise, surprise, vulnerable women are still exploited. How can you call that effective?

Germany doesn't have decriminalisation, it has regulation.

Sorry, you're correct and I edited my post to reflect that. Are you arguing for completely unregulated decriminalization? You really don't think that this would cause an increase in trafficking? If an attempt at legalization with measures to curb trafficking didn't work, how would literally letting pimps operate with impunity be a better solution?

Here's a paper with some links to how decrim has worked in Auckland: http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Report%20on%20NZ%2010-29...

As we've reached the nested reply limit here: It would let pimps operate with impunity because the service which they are having others sell is no longer an issue? While not all sex workers are trafficked, even those who are not trafficked have pimps. The WHISPER study from the late 80's said that almost 90% of women interviewed had pimps during their time in prostitution. Full decriminalization by it's very nature makes pimping legal -- that's one of its tenants. If you think there is going to be a shortage of abusive/exploitative people waiting in line for that opportunity, we live in very different worlds.

Also, the Nordic model gets around that by only criminalizing the sex-work for the person buying it. When arrests are made, the prostitute is asked if they would like assistance with leaving the industry, if they answer no then they are free to go.

@abandonliberty I would argue that it shows that given what we currently know, the Nordic model of decriminalization for sex workers and criminalization of sex buyers seems to be the most effective at reducing the harms of prostitution. Seeing as both street prostitution, which is dangerous, and human trafficking have been on the decline since it's implementation, and the results have not been the same in other countries in which legalization/decrim have been attempted, it's the prudent course of action.

Why would legalising sex work "let pimps operate with impunity"? Not all sex workers are trafficked.

Sex workers can't seek help when sex work is illegal, because they fear arrest.

Your source clearly has an agenda and conflicts with official reports on several counts [0].

While it does have several valid points, they're far more relevant to the approach to decriminalize rather than whether to decriminalize or not.

All the problems it highlights exist just as much in a criminalized environment; reporting is reduced because it is hidden.

My source may have a bias, but the viewpoint is based upon evidence from the New Zealand PRC. The problems it mentions have been shown to be reduced by the Nordic Model, when in every case of legalization/full decriminalization no such claims have been made/substantiated.

So maybe this is a stupid question, but if vulnerable women are "still" exploited then how was keeping it illegal helping anything?

Not a stupid question. The Nordic model is another model of decriminalization that places responsibility on the individuals who buy sex. In this model, the sex-workers are not prosecuted for being prostitutes, and are given the ability to use social programs to leave prostitution if they choose to. The intent is to remove the stigmatization of women in prostitution, and giving them the means to leave the sex-work if they wish to, in stark contrast to our current system (in the US) of making prostitution illegal, typically targeting the prostitutes, which makes getting help scary/difficult. It is essentially a model that tries to help those who have resorted to prostitution out of desperation while attempting to diminish the demand that drives the industry. Also, it is notable that pimping is illegal in the Nordic model.

The "Nordic model" (really, the Swedish one) also makes sex work illegal, and also drives sex workers underground.

What do you mean? "The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. Pimping, procuring and operating a brothel are also illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase, but not selling, of sex was unique when first enacted in 1999, but since then Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, both in 2009." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden

If you make either side of a transaction illegal, the transaction is illegal, and both sides are driven underground.

There are important distinctions in the resulting power dynamics which mean that the distinctions between prohibiting both sides, prohibiting just the purchasing side, and prohibiting just the selling side significant distinctions. But all of them prohibit the exchange and force the exchange underground; you can't do that to only one side of the exchange.

The third story is that people in desperate situation sometime takes desperate actions in order to bring food to the table. Those people are sometimes victim to circumstances, heroic in their action, and judged by society differently based on gender. Being seen only as victim or only as heroic removes half the truth, and hurting those persons in the process.

I don't think there is a call for action, rather a call for understanding. Labels like victim and hero frames the narrative, which is why they are often found in the introduction.

>>human slavery does happen, but its not the default case.

Which country are you talking about? I can imagine this being true in countries like the Netherlands, where state and police actively regulates and monitors it (instead of simple allowing it and ignoring it), but from the preponderance of media coverage and anecdotes i do indeed think that the majority of women in this industry worldwide are exploited in some form or the other to do this job.

"I read it on HN, so it must be true?" My wife did her master's thesis on sex workers in the Philippines.

TL;DR - for the vast majority of female sex workers in that country, it is an economic CHOICE. The mostly single mothers felt it was their best opportunity to earn an income capable of supporting their families.

Those with agendas (especially those who are after your donations) are always the ones who speak the loudest.

After the war, German families encouraged their children to prostitute themselves to make money for the family. They did this because it was the best "choice" available to be able to feed themselves.

Of course, not every country is the same, not every scenario is the same, and thus we can't say that the choice some German families made after WWII and those single mothers in the Philippines are making the same kind of choice, are they?

Make no mistake - the vast, VAST majority of sex workers in the world are being exploited. Sometimes it's in the form of violence and coercion to continue the job. Sometimes it's due to unfair social and economic pressure on a vulnerable demographic. Sometimes it's just plain-old sexism, misogyny, humiliation, degradation, etc that's taken for granted as part of the career, which some workers have more agency in allowing, while others that have to take whatever abuse comes their way.

For the most part, my friends who are sex workers and enjoy the work are people who have unlimited choice: stable, single, educated, white, middle-upper-class women who could probably get any job they wanted, and choose this career and their clients.

My friends who are sex workers and don't enjoy the work have effectively no choice in the matter, either because they don't have an effective education, they have an inability to get other regular work, are destitute, have no social support structure, or have emotional or psychological disorders. And these are the people who are not being pimped out or sold for slavery.

But I probably don't know what i'm talking about, because I didn't write a master's thesis on it.

>it is an economic CHOICE.

So why couldn't they CHOOSE to be CEOs or middle class professionals?

It's a serious question. Even allowing for IQ and aptitude differences, the idea that this is a genuine choice is difficult to support - because it's only a choice in the sense that they're given very limited options in a social situation that's heavily rigged agains them.

Perhaps it's also relevant to ask:

1. How many would do it given a completely free choice without external economic pressures they have no control over?

2. Why do they not have a completely free choice?

Well, not just HN but i get the point.

That does raise a lot of interesting questions. How did they get into the trade ? - This is usually where the primary exploitation happens. After that, it is not uncommon for women to stay within the industry by choice, (because they don't know how to do anything else, they have debts to pay, shame/stigma and trouble reintegrating with society and family after being outcast). Who are the fathers of the children - Are they from an actual relationship or are they consequences of the trade? Of course, all my statements are primarily from media coverage or anecdotal in nature. I don't know how things are in the Phillipines. Could you share a link to the paper? Might be a good counter-point on the matter which people can cite.

edit : typos

It might even be one of the best economic choice in YOUR country, considering how much money can be made with prostitution.

But I'm pretty sure that you'd have slight reservations if your wife or daughter chose this kind of job. Why? It'd make perfect economic sense.

According to the US state department the Netherlands is among the top 5 countries of origin among victims of human trafficking. (specifically for forced prostitution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Nethe...