Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 225 posts

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#181

Post by esarbe »

yters wrote: post #164
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E.g. actor, singer, laborer, masseuse... as a matter of degree, each is a 'slave' to their client(s)? I think that's exaggerating the case.

None of these jobs involve subjecting oneself to multiple disease vectors every day and arbitrary acts of violence. Plus, as the 'my body my choice' crowd recognizes, our bodies are one of the most important sources of our identity. To have others treat our bodies as disposable commodities essentially communicates to us that we ourselves are disposable.

The current economic setup already forces us to treat our bodies, our precious time of life as commodities. Prostitution is just one example, there are many others.

If you argue for changing the economic setup so that nobody has to do work they would rather not be doing -- I'm all for it. But don't make it sound as if prostitution was anything special in that regard.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#182

Post by esarbe »

Freestyler_3 wrote: post #176
yters wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal miners, oil rig workers, soldiers, policemen, firemen, doctors. These are all necessary jobs to make our society run. Prostitution is both unnecessary and destructive to all parties involved. Clear difference between the two categories.

coal miners are necessary for society but prostitutes are not. I wonder which proffesion has been around longer.

Found this one interesting:

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

I guess it's not coal mining...

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#183

Post by excalibur »

yters wrote: post #164
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E.g. actor, singer, laborer, masseuse... as a matter of degree, each is a 'slave' to their client(s)? I think that's exaggerating the case.

None of these jobs involve subjecting oneself to multiple disease vectors every day and arbitrary acts of violence. Plus, as the 'my body my choice' crowd recognizes, our bodies are one of the most important sources of our identity. To have others treat our bodies as disposable commodities essentially communicates to us that we ourselves are disposable.

We'd better ban janitors then. And, you know, teachers.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#184

Post by esarbe »

excalibur wrote: post #180
yters wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The body is an especially intimate part of one's being. To denigrate it to be another's tool is no different than slavery, even if one receives financial recompense.

By this logic all employment that requires physical activity is slavery.

That argument could be made, but I don't think this is yters'.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#185

Post by skookumchuck »

oh_sigh wrote: post #105
skookumchuck wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking went up during Prohibition.

That is about a specific bad policy, not about the concept of instituting policies to reduce these behaviors in general. I agree that some policies do not accomplish what they intend to. What about taxes on alcohol that fund anti-drinking campaigns and help fund treatment centers?

> That is about a specific bad policy

It's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about

> What about

That is not making it illegal.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#186

Post by shkkmo »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #94
guelo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Section 230 is a bad thing and it going away is a good thing The last 20 years of web innovation begs to differ. Killing user-generated content will make us all worse off.

I vehemently disagree with the rhetoric of the tech companies that holding them legally responsible for willful participation in criminal activity will "kill user-generated content".

That isn't the rhetoric. Willful participation in criminal activity is already criminal and there are no tech companies saying we should change that.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#187

Post by shkkmo »

guelo wrote: post #10
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

I think the missing discussion is that some bad law exists, but that SESTA/FOSTA is not that bad law: Websites should not be immune to prosecution for intentionally facilitating criminal activity. Section 230 is a bad thing and it going away is a good thing. Headlines I've seen like "sex workers are the canary in the coal mine for free speech" are not really accurate, because this is about activity which is and has b…

> Section 230 is a bad thing and it going away is a good thing The last 20 years of web innovation begs to differ. Killing user-generated content will make us all worse off.

Getting rid of Section 230 doesn't kill user-generated content. It kills the ability of website operators to do any moderation or filtering without becoming liable for all user-generated content.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#188

Post by shkkmo »

blhack wrote: post #92
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of moral hazards around prostitution, and banning it outright makes all of them worse . It makes the women involved criminals and deprives them of legal protection when they're abused. The only reason to make prostitution a crime is if you think prostitutes themselves are committing evil. That is 100% a religious position with no rational support.

>makes all of them worse This seems like a pretty outrageous claim. It seems obvious that: 1) There are moral hazards surrounding prostitution 2) The legal status of prostitution has a negative effect on the number of people participating in it. So while legalizing prostitution certainly could (and anecdotally would ) negate some of the hazards, to say that it would negate all of them seems foolish, or at the very le…

All you need to do is provide a example of a moral hazard that would not be negated by legalization.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#189

Post by dragonwriter »

oh_sigh wrote: post #105
skookumchuck wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking went up during Prohibition.

That is about a specific bad policy, not about the concept of instituting policies to reduce these behaviors in general. I agree that some policies do not accomplish what they intend to. What about taxes on alcohol that fund anti-drinking campaigns and help fund treatment centers?

> That is about a specific bad policy

Yes, exactly.

> What about taxes on alcohol that fund anti-drinking campaigns and help fund treatment centers?

They mostly fund anti-youth-drinking campaigns and responsible drinking campaigns, not anti-drinking campaigns (OTOH, tobacco taxes often do fund anti-smoking campaigns.) They also fund licensing and enforcement agencies that license vendors and enforce laws against selling to youth, selling in inappropriate venues, etc.

I think you would find that many people who oppose prohibition of prostitution would support loosely similar tax, regulatory, and enforcement structures.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#190

Post by esarbe »

djsumdog wrote: post #63
ihsw2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prostitution trivializes sex by converting it to an activity fueled by capitalist incentives, forcing women to transfer control to her client rather than keeping it in her individual control. It is definitely different in that consent is removed by economic force rather than physical force.

Why do we take sex so seriously? What's wrong with trivializing it? We don't make a big deal about kissing, or playing golf? Animals often fuck without consent (although most other mammals have mating sessions that last less than 15 seconds). There is a really interesting dynamic in humans where we have either evolved or socially constructed (or both) this very strong sense of importance (and also shame) around sex.…

You made a very good point and I'm in full agreement. Sex is overrated.
Post reply on HN