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

Going undercover as a sex worker

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#221

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

nostrebored wrote: post #210
oldmanjay wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#222

Post by kbenson »

jbrown wrote: post #202
kbenson wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> specifically the portion about monogamy / sexual exclusivity It feel like you are pushing a specific aspect to the detriment of the whole. I agree that if someone doesn't desire, or can't maintain monogamy in a marriage, that they should be upfront about this and make sure their partner is aware and accepting. While that this may require a bit of social change to make it more acceptable, I don't think that's a spec…

> It feel like you are pushing a specific aspect to the detriment of the whole. Maybe. What detriment are you thinking of? I'm just observing that since monogamy restricts us to this 1:1 gender ratio, and since in some cases one of those 1s is taken off the table (either literally or if not literally, maybe effectively due to low quality) this drastically restricts society's ability to meet a basic human need one a w…

> Maybe. What detriment are you thinking of?

The marriage as a whole. I see accurate representation of expected monogamy/polygamy or fidelity/infidelity (WRT sex) as just one aspect of many that may cause marital problems. What about a husband that expects the wife to be a homemaker when she is unhappy in that role, or a wife that expects the husband to provide all financial support when the husband is unhappy with that. There are many reasons marriages fail, and I think focusing specifically on one of them may not help as much as making people more aware of marriage expectations altogether.

As for the rest of your comment, I would be happy if marriage as a whole was less strictly regimented by society, but I understand the reasons it is. Marriage is the building block of families, and families are the building blocks of our societies. We optimize for successful families that produce well adjusted offspring. The problem is that I'm not sure exactly how we are defining "well-adjusted". If it's primarily in relation so society and culture (it is, the question is how much), it may just be self selecting. That's not necessarily a way to make things better, just to perpetuate the status quo. I just don't know enough to make a call.

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#223

Post by nostrebored »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #221
nostrebored wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#224

Post by dragonwriter »

nostrebored wrote: post #223
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#225

Post by facepalm »

danparsonson wrote: post #33
belorn wrote: post #29

When reading works like this one I tend to find three stories being merged into one. It focuses on slavery where most of the evil aspects of humans tend to come out, as in order to reduce a human person into something that can be traded, everything that gives that person a social context must be torn down. This is where the "break down" period comes from and it's a common theme in everything from the African slave tr…

Many (most?) of the women involved in these situations don't go there out of choice or with full knowledge of what they're getting involved in; they're either lied to and subsequently trapped, sold by their families (which is where poverty is a big factor, and certainly is not a choice made by the girls themselves), or outright kidnapped. That's the difference in your man vs. woman scenario - someone working in a coa…

When they capture a city, ISIS kills all men older than 14 years and turns the women and girls into sex slaves (or force marries them). It seems likely that in situations where women are forced to take up prostitution, men are not living in the greatest circumstances either.

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#226

Post by jbrown »

kbenson wrote: post #222
jbrown wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feel like you are pushing a specific aspect to the detriment of the whole. Maybe. What detriment are you thinking of? I'm just observing that since monogamy restricts us to this 1:1 gender ratio, and since in some cases one of those 1s is taken off the table (either literally or if not literally, maybe effectively due to low quality) this drastically restricts society's ability to meet a basic human need one a w…

> Maybe. What detriment are you thinking of? The marriage as a whole. I see accurate representation of expected monogamy/polygamy or fidelity/infidelity (WRT sex) as just one aspect of many that may cause marital problems. What about a husband that expects the wife to be a homemaker when she is unhappy in that role, or a wife that expects the husband to provide all financial support when the husband is unhappy with t…

> The marriage as a whole.

How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole? I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not talking here about causes of marriage failure. I'm talking about the graph structure of society's sexual relationships.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages. I'm asking if changing society's expectations to the point where both monogamy and all variations of non-monogamy were perceived to be equally legitimate (with a likely corresponding increase in the number of non-monogamous relationships) could have an impact on the demand for sex trafficking. I don't think making this change would eliminate sex trafficking, but I think it could plausibly help the situation.

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#227

Post by kbenson »

jbrown wrote: post #226
kbenson wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe. What detriment are you thinking of? The marriage as a whole. I see accurate representation of expected monogamy/polygamy or fidelity/infidelity (WRT sex) as just one aspect of many that may cause marital problems. What about a husband that expects the wife to be a homemaker when she is unhappy in that role, or a wife that expects the husband to provide all financial support when the husband is unhappy with t…

> The marriage as a whole. How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole? I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not talking here about causes of marriage failure. I'm talking about the graph structure of society's sexual relationships. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages. I'm asking if changing society's expectations to the point where both monogamy and all variat…

> How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole?

I think focusing on one possible problem with marriages which I view to be a subset of a larger issue may take focus from other, equally important aspects. Not so much in that it harms a specific marriage, but that it may be a less useful way to look at marriage in general if our goal is promote happy and long lasting unions.

> I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages.

I didn't think you were saying that. I'm more conversing than arguing a point. We seem to be mostly in agreement, I just think an approach less focused on a single aspect would be more beneficial overall.

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#228

Post by jbrown »

kbenson wrote: post #227
jbrown wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The marriage as a whole. How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole? I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not talking here about causes of marriage failure. I'm talking about the graph structure of society's sexual relationships. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages. I'm asking if changing society's expectations to the point where both monogamy and all variat…

> How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole? I think focusing on one possible problem with marriages which I view to be a subset of a larger issue may take focus from other, equally important aspects. Not so much in that it harms a specific marriage, but that it may be a less useful way to look at marriage in general if our goal is promote happy and long lasting unions. > I'm not s…

> I just think an approach less focused on a single aspect would be more beneficial overall.

Fair enough. I was focusing on the monogamy issue because it seems a lot more directly related to sexual trafficking and this thread than, say, how a couple manages finances or who cleans up the kitchen. :)

Re: Going undercover as a sex worker

#230

Post by thret »

Someone wrote: post #189
thret wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia? It is legal here. It isn't something people talk about much, but that doesn't mean it is a taboo.

Do people exchange tips on brothels to visit at work roughly as easily as they do about restaurants or movies? If not, there is a taboo, if not about visiting a brothel, then about talking about it.

It depends on where you work and who you work with. For the most part I'd say it is discussed with about the same frequency as masturbation. That doesn't mean there is a taboo - just that it is often inappropriate to discuss at work.
Post reply on HN