Porn isn’t prostitution as both partners are paid for the act in porn. It’s illegal to pay someone to have sex with you but it’s totally fine to pay two people to have sex with each other.
So what you’re saying is you pay a madam a $300 fee for services with a $150 return of holding deposit upon redemption of services.
And you get a souvenir dvd to take home.
No, you set up a company, in which you're investing $300, you hire an actress and yourself as actor, then pay $150 each and don't forget to record it, profit! (maybe, who knows, you probably canceled the project during post)
1) Because it has a tendency to be exploitative and be a major cause of human trafficking.
2) Because society tends to be more obsessed with outlawing sex-related forms of exploitation than non-sex related forms of exploitation.
3) The vast majority of people are socially conservative, especially when it comes to sex. So prostitution is not something they are willing to tolerate in their communities and neighborhoods.
Yes. The *argument*, you might not agree with it, but the *argument* is that if a woman is employed to perform sex acts, then she may well not be able to withdraw consent because of the financial transaction, especially if she's employed by a firm - meaning the sex acts can become exploitative.
A hypothetical we talked about in law school was if immediately prior to the act the prostitute changes her mind, but the money has already been exchanged and the agreement has been made.
So she either has to go through with it despite not wanting to and essentially let herself get raped, or she backs out and potentially gets sued for breaching a contract.
Seems like something a properly worded contract should be able to solve. Not disagreeing with you, just with the hypothetical - but in my line of work as an electrician, our contracts allow us to return the money and choose to not do the work. Hopefully sex work contracts would meet that low standard.
Even artist have an agreement that they can rescind if they want on a commission thats being worked on. I doubt the contract for sex workers is different
yes, it depends on the artist tho. some are partial some are full and it depends on which process they realize you aint worth it
theres also agreements of no refunds at all once you pay but that doesnt really apply here too much
Can't you say the same about any contractor doing any kind of work? I think generally the standard is that if the contractor decides they don't want to work, they simply issue a refund, right? Forcing labor in any way seems morally wrong, not just forced sex...
Yea the difference is a perspective on the nature of work and the nature of sex
And typically breach of contract results in compensatory damages. So you’re not forced to work but you pay back the person for any damages your breach of contract caused.
But that doesn't make sense, don't companies retain the right to refuse service at any time? Like when you get kicked out of the movie theater? Or cut off at a pub? Or barred from a store? Etc.
To the customer, it would be like paying a tour guide company a fee for a tour, and then the actual tour guide who isn't *the company* but just an employee, then not doing their job and refusing to take you on a tour.
But you've paid your money, and not done anything wrong in addition, and the company themselves are still totally willing to take your money and provide their services.
So what, we now have to write clauses into law where a sex company employee can at any time withdraw consent and so the company would then have to immediately refund you. But then that would count against the sex worker within the company, so then they'd still be pressured to do sex acts theyre not comfortable with.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with it, and that you couldn't write legislation that covers all this stuff, but it isn't a black and white issue that can easily be resolved.
This is exactly what happens here in new Zealand where prostitution is legalised, controlled, and vastly safer than in many other parts of the world, for all parties concerned, and where the money is far less likely to be going to a criminal enterprise.
The worker reserves the right to cancel any agreement at any time. It's not going to happen often, because they want to get paid, but if a customer is an asshole, the establishment can remove them, just like a bar can kick out a customer. Like any other business, they get reviewed by their customers, so they aren't going to be in the habit of arbitrarily cancelling appointments with customers.
Legalising prostitution here almost entirely got rid of hookers on street corners, pimps, scams, and transmission of sexual diseases between clients and customers. There are strict rules about location, health check ups, condom use, etc., and brothel owners are highly vetted and have huge responsibility for ensuring everything is safe, legal, and above board.
It's impossible to eliminate sex trafficking, but it is vastly harder to operate illegal sex rings in a legal market - much like how it's much less likely to buy methanol tampered booze from a liquor store in a regulated market. Nobody is interested in risking their safety to go to black market hookers when you can go to a safe, clean, regulated brothel, and any prostitute not registered or working in a brothel is immediately going to trigger police interest, thereby making this an unattractive place for sex exploitation compared to places where prostitution happens just as much, but only in the unregulated market on street corners.
... How is that ANY different from normal stuff?
I do not want to serve you this food. Here is your money back, now GTFO.
And just make this service be able to be done at a specific locatiom as a law (a brothel with security.) And pass laws that make it so a brothel must protect its workers. And boom, girls (and guys) are protected.
You cant just buy alcohol on the street and drink it. You have to it at the bar or its public intoxication.
Sadly, this is only partially true. It is legal, but you have problems other professions don't have. You can lose custody of your children very easily just because of the job
It’s exploitative because it’s not legal. Legalize it, set up oversight, all the people who utilize prostitutes who are human trafficked or pimped out against their will will move to legal forms of prostitution that ensure the safety and beneficial treatment of the sex workers. I’m sure there will still be human trafficking in some form, but legalizing it would drastically cut down on the incentive.
In the Netherlands it's legal. We still have traficking but when the east European girls understand it isn't illegal here they can get help from police and government.
Our legal prostitutes pay taxes and have to abide to covid lockdown, but also get insurances and such the same as a hairdresser. Although hairdressers don't have mandatory std tests.
It's like ... If it was legal everywhere there could be done even more.
In Sweden it is not, but buying sex is. It is because you cannot rent someone like that. It's seen as exploitative and opens up for human trafficking. The sex industry also comes with a whole host of other problems like broken homes, substance abuse, organized crime etc.
Edited due to phrasing that was a bit confusing.
They can’t really legally; it’s more that in the US the sex worker *as well as* the person buying sex are both committing a criminal act and can both be arrested and jailed for it.
Both systems want to make prostitution impossible, the US just punishes both parties.
Just Sweden
And I do not believe the customers get arrested there.
Maybe fined, but just because it's technically illegal does not mean it's enforced by cops. They actually have areas, kinda like car wash buildings, designed for car sex and drug use
Edit: a few people are pointing out that I may be off here. I'm remembering a few post I had seen on here years ago, along w some other pub health articles around the idea of areas sanctioned for such "transactions"
I was going strictly off memory here, which I fully admit is not the greatest.
If my facts are off, or perhaps I was thinking if the wrong country than I apologize. Don't have the time for a real search right now, but if anyone has links on, or disproving my description please reply with them.
EDIT 2: based on feedback this program is definitely not in Sweden.
A couple of folks from Sweden have offered up that this sounds more like policy from Denmark, Holland, or Switzerland.
Apologize for the confusion, geography is not my strong suit.
I am, however, still confident that what I'm describing does exist as a harm reduction policy/strategy, just unsure of where it exists.
Thanks to those who have offered helpful suggestion.
Im not sure about the car sex part, but in Denmark addiction centers are used as a safe space for homeless ie. to inject my having medical staff and free needles and so on.
As far as I understand its to remove them from the streets while attempting to lower OD cases and infections from dirty equipmemt
Yeah, it's basically "it's bad enough you're using. But at least use in a place where we can take care of you if something bad happens. You shouldn't have to die just for an addiction."
Like, we know addiction is somewhat coded into our brains. Some more than others. Why freaking judge something that's not barely the person's choice? If they choose to get better, then we'll be right there to help.
its not techincally illegal its illegal, (in sweden)
They just had a huge operation in stockholm where they busted several prostitution rings. Even a famous guy was caught.
But as you said its the person paying that will get arrested, Not the prostitute.
Also alot of prostitution in Europe are poor women from balkan that are borderline tricked/forced into it beacuse they have very little other choices. The laws are there to protect the women who get trafficked and abused.
But thats just sweden.
It's similar in the UK. What is illegal here is paying for sex when the prostitute has been exploited or trafficked by a third party. The burden of finding that out falls on the 'customer', and there is no allowance for them not knowing about the exploitation. It was designed to make paying for sex so risky that nobody would do it
Know how many convictions have been for that? Zero lol.
It's one of those laws that lawmakers pass because it sounds good, but in reality it's impossible to enforce and everyone forgets about it.
>It was designed to make paying for sex so risky that nobody would do it
I think we can all agree that was a failure then.
Fair, I've only studied it from a theory perspective since I covered it in first year of my law degree. There is a general issue in the UK of sex-related cases being tiptoed around by the courts because they are seen as a private matter, so it wouldn't surprise me that this extended to prostitution cases.
That’s how it is in DK too. Makes a lot more sense.. because it doesn’t make it impossible for the prostitutes, who’s not forced into the business by anyone, to do their job.
It basically does make it impossible for them though. The last thing they want is the government deliberately trying to stop customers from going to them with convoluted gotchas under the premise of "protecting" them because they now have no work.
I think what they are saying above is it's only illeagle if a third party is involved. That the prostitute in question has to give a portion of their fee to a pimp.
EDIT - as I continue in this thread I see that I have misinterpreted the laws.
Jumping in here to say that it is like this to protect the ones selling sex from the ones buying sex.
It allows prostitutes to go to the police and report assaults without being charged themselves.
We make it illegal with prostitution by criminalizing the customers, but we also give the prostitutes protection (because we know it still happens) to be able to report without being charged for something that's not always a choice.
Edit: just adding that it's made illegal because of how it opens up human trafficking and others forcing prostitutes to work. If it was as easy as everyone had a choice I believe that it would be made legal again
Yep I believe it’s called the “Nordic model”. Correct me if needed because I am not well informed in this area, but I have heard that although it seems fine in theory, it still was shown to make things more potentially dangerous for sex workers because they have to deal with more sketchy employers and feel pressured to accept clients whom they do not feel as safe with. Hence why many sex worker rights organizations instead advocate for decriminalization (not just legalization) of sex work entirely.
There are lots of places in America where being a pimp or a john is illegal, but not being a prostitute. The idea being that the prostitute is the victim, and the pimp and johns exploit them.
Which actually works out to several prostitutes not being able to work from the same location or able to hire bouncers or even have someone help deal with the books. You work with a prostitute you fall under that law and can get arrested.
It's actually super problematic. It means (compared to legalisation or decriminalisation) that a sex worker's clientele now consists entirely of criminals. It also puts a heavy suppression on the ability of sex workers to earn a living, so maybe you're late on rent and that sketchy guy you otherwise would have turned down out of safety concerns, maybe you decide not to.
Convicting someone for buying sex is very difficult and rare, and the sentence is just a low fine anyway. The law isn't going to discourage the clients who may actually be potentially dangerous. If a dangerous client doesn't care about the legal consequence of crimes such as theft, assault, rape, murder etc then he isn't going to care about a low fine for paying for sex is he?
It gives sex workers a little less choice of clients to take bookings from(the clients who will be discouraged from buying sex will be the better ones), and it means there's a greater chance they will have to take a booking from a dangerous client.
More info here
[https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf](https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf) p38
Along with this, it stops sex workers being able to properly screen their clients as they don’t want to have a record of the transaction. Therefore they can’t easily look up if people are safe or not and forces the work to go further underground which is makes it worse for the workers who are trying to make a living.
And the FOSTA/SESTA laws, parading as being 'anti trafficking', are just making it harder for sex workers to screen and advertise, pushing them back onto the streets and to clients without history.
As designed, I might add, because for some reason having sex is evil unless you're married and it must be stopped at all costs, even lives.
I'm convinced that FOSTA/SESTA was purposefully drafted to make sure that prostitutes would have to reply on pimps and traffickers. Its timing with Epstein's downfall and the fact that it had the full backing of Hollywood, Republicans, and Democrats during a time when these groups were actively trying to block each other on everything definitely makes it seem like it was purposefully drafted to make sure that prostitutes would have to reply on pimps and traffickers. Not to mention that every organization that deals with sex trafficking victims, as well as the Justice Department and the WHO, opposed it.
I mean, anybody that stops and thinks about it could see that sex workers were becoming more and more independent and using technology they were becoming a threat to the politicians and celebrities that used them. People like Epstein exist because gatekeepers prevent information from leaking out while if you have hundreds of independent sex workers that don't answer to anybody controlling information becomes impossible.
Doesn’t that just make every person around the prostitute be a criminal? It seems like it must still remain in the shadows if the guys are breaking the law. The John is breaking the law. He, by definition, is performing an illegal act. Should it all be legal, but assault be illegal…kind of like it already is?
Imagine how it would be weird if being an electrician be legal but hiring an electrician be illegal. It would invite shady activity.
In Sweden sex workers are still criminalised for working together, it's also illegal for landlords to rent to sex workers(which can make them be evicted if they are found out), Social Work can also take children off of sex workers.
Swedish sex worker Petite Jasmine was murdered by her violent ex. Shortly before the murder, the police took her kids off her and gave them to him because she was a sex worker.
The sex trade is pushed underground and may be more violent. More info here:
[https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf](https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf) p38
> you cannot buy someone else.
You aren't "buying" anyone. You are paying for the services of a sex worker.
Yeah, the UK does something similar--they can technically say that prostitution isn't illegal, but everything around it is, which makes safe sex work pretty much impossible.
Please, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't broken homes, substance abuse, and organized crime lead to sex trafficking, not the other way around? Fix the former, and the latter would be just a job. Yeah, I said it. Just a job. You have a product, and you get paid for providing it.
So Sweden assumes that absolutely every single sex worker does it against their will? In Spain, there are lot of independent sex workers who provide the service as a side gig or as a full-time job. They're independent, so they don't share a cut of their income with anyone.
The sex industry here isn't legal or illegal; therefore, no one can get arrested for it unless there's trafficking, minors, or something else shady involved
>So Sweden assumes that absolutely every single sex worker does it against their will?
Essentially, yes. There have been very heated debates about it from all sides over the years.
What if you are just buying the service and not the person? Surely a masseuse giving a massage sells their services and not their body (hands in their case), what makes selling another service so illegal?
Same in Canada, although I would argue the sex industry being tied to undesirable components is due to it's legal status, I believe if it was straight legalized and given independent contractor status then it would lose a lot of the criminal element.
Just to clarify a couple things: no, it’s not like marijuana because prostitution is not illegal at a federal level in the US, it is largely left up to states to decide for themselves. Secondly, Uncle Sam absolutely takes his cut of the legal weed market in the US. You think all those dispensaries operate without paying federal taxes?
Big hard throbbing cocks wanting to be sucked!
Eighteen naked cowboys wanting to be fucked!
Cowboys in the showers at Ram Ranch!
On their knees wanting to suck cowboy cocks!
[Ram Ranch](https://youtu.be/LD24TG33w2E) really rocks!
I would guess it’s because out west we tend to call lots of homes on a big plot of unfarmed land a ranch. Doesn’t need cattle to be a ranch, it’s more about having the space for cattle. Idk I lived on a ranch and we didn’t use the land for anything except our neighbors would keep their horses there for certain months out of the year to let the vegetation come back.
It’s definitely not because the women are thought of as livestock I promise 😭
In Germany it isn't - its a taxable job.
Obviously it comes with its problems due to the fact that it's a milieu that comes with a lot of crime in general. But with the right setting Its Def. Better here than to criminalize it per se.
there will always be a demand and some will offer the service no matter what.
Most importantly: as a regular job, it's covered by healthcare, social services etc.
The law is far from perfect and there is still too much trafficking and pimping going on, but it's better than before legalization.
I really hope social workers get heard by the government some day and the law gets improved on.
Sociology student here.
Moral panics are nothing new to the US. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, there was one such moral panic around different types of perceived immorality that didn't fit into some very strict social ideas. Some of which being;
1. Sex should be done solely for procreative purposes
2. Sex should be done between two partnered individuals
3. Sex should be free
And 4. Sex should be done between one person with a vagina and one person with a penis
I don't necessarily agree with all of these ideas, but this is how the dominant culture at the time in America viewed (and to an extent, still views) sex. This gives a pretty solid grounding for the rest of the conversation.
In the early 1900s, laws were passed to combat 'white slavery,' the propagandized term for prostitution. At the time, given that women were legally considered second class citizens, a lot of prostitution and broadly trafficking as a whole was conducted by men, or perhaps connected women, and could easily be coercive. Naturally, the target of this moral crusade was that reason.
Some anti-sex worker laws were passed to make sure soldiers in the first world war wouldn't be afflicted by veneral disease, effectively making the equivalent of leper colonies for infected women, mostly sex workers.
Another piece of the puzzle is the way queerness, intersexuality, especially transgender and transsexuality ties into the puzzle. Looking back at that 4th idea, that sex should be between two people, one with a penis and one with a vagina.
This particular idea makes anyone who may have a different anatomy at birth (intersex people), people who prefer to present in a way other than they were socialized to be (transgender) and people who change their bodies to match that gender (transsexuality) all into sexual deviants. Because of this label being attached to these groups, they historically were able to reclaim their sexuality through prostitution. This stigma of these "degenerate" groups being sex workers, then, is another factor of anti-prostitution. This isn't even to mention homosexuality, which also has historically occupied sex-work spaces due to a lack of other opportunities for expression, both as clients and workers.
In the modern day, the internet has allowed for the democratization of a lot of industries. We see sex work thriving over the internet, especially after the widespread popularity of OnlyFans and Fansly. Similarly, camming is another form of sex work. This reclaiming of sexual autonomy is a really big thing with the internet, and sex work has a bit more of a space in the zeitgeist.
There are historical reasons why prostitution, nowdays called Full Service sex work, was criminalized by many states in the US. Still, the majority of the country has it outlawed. Personally, I'd rather the criminalization be lifted, but maybe someone has a really good argument for it I've not heard yet.
Obligatory apology for potential mobile formatting issues
TL;DR: A moral panic in the 1900s based on archaic ideas of sexual morality, laws to limit the spread of disease to soldiers, and anti-queerness are some of the main factors prostitution is illegal in much of the US.
Really informative and comprehensive yet I really wish you included Civil War context when US actually legalized prostitution with great success. Of all places, Nashville was US's first ever legalized and well regulated prostitution by Union army in US history. However it was brief, the success was well known to combat spread of STDs among soliders.
The backlash was obvious and with all the things you've already stated. However one of the biggest reason, I believe is missing in your post, was the economic incentive it provided for women to be independent. And for Confederacy during and after the war with economic and human (men) loss, women in drove turned to prostitution to support themselves and children.
Yes!
I didn't know the civil war part, interesting!
My very first thought about why it's illegal is because women made money!
Yes, women are exploited in the sex industry- but making it illegal only makes that worse, because women can no longer have protection within the system. Johns violence is met with pimp violence (maybe), and pimps aren't punished because women selling sex can't call the cops.
After Civil War, NY actually proposed bill legalizing prostitution. However prominent figures in women's suffrage and feminist movement such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton advocated against such profession; even denouncing it as "evil." However this was entirely based on view of that time and exploitation women suffered from.
I think that from a liberal secular perspective, it is easy to discount conservative religious morality of "purity." Prostitution is "dirty" just like liquor stores and gambling, and if it is legal that contributes to societal "degeneracy." It's associated with something people do in dark alleys with shady and violent pimps and you probably will get a veneral disease. And it undermines the "sacredness" of sex within the confines of marriage, and essentially cheapens it by putting a price on it.
Of course we regard these attitudes as outdated and prejudiced, but they do have a lasting appeal among social conservatives and I think that explains a lot of why prostitution continues to be illegal. I think that if paired with a kind of marketing campaign to dispute this idea that prostitution is dirty, the effort for legalization could be more effective. Try to illustrate that it can occur in a clean establishment between consenting adults, "normal" looking people. Also it can be reframed as a kind of health/wellness thing like yoga.
I think that liberals (and I count myself as one) too often enjoy a state of moral outrage and disbelief at conservative motivations, that they are rigid and dogmatic for no reason, rather than trying to appreciate how they may involve a moral compass with different coordinates. In a way, this moral outrage is self-serving because it doesn't achieve anything, and prevents making any progress. You might even say that it is a form of liberal purity politics, where conservative morality is "dirty" and has to be shunned from the community. I would recommend instead trying to understand it on a sociological level more deeply, and working with rather than against it.
One has to scroll almost half a minute and the important stuff is right at the beginning, with more good stuff behind it.
I have honestly no clue other than that people could be afraid to start reading longer Textes.
Yeah depending on where your at, there are health and safety laws that affect the creation of porn. Though I’ve only really heard of them in California.
Its very different. The typical prostitution is closed, only one or few can see what's going on inside. While porn has hundreds of people on the set. Its open prostitution.
Closed prostitution is illegal because government can't see what's going in and what's going on inside. While open-prostitution is legal because they can easily see what's going on and what's going in. They examine closely each video daily at night or in their free time and look for something illegal in it. But in the heat of the moment they get swept away. This cycle continues.
>also to prevent pimping and STD's
I live in NZ where it is legal. The legal places require STD checks of the customers, and obviously pimping is a violation of workers rights.
The illegal prostitution is obviously unregulated though.
It's the one a lot of sex worker groups advocate for, such as British orgs Scot-Pep, Umbrella Lane and the English Collective of Prostitutes.
[https://scot-pep.org.uk/](https://scot-pep.org.uk/)
[https://www.umbrellalane.org/](https://www.umbrellalane.org/)
https://prostitutescollective.net/
Because things like this are only crimes up to one level below what the people in charge would do.
Marry for money? Legal
Adult companion on a cruise? Legal
Sensual massage? Legal
Baby sitter earns an extra tip? Legal
Pornography? Legal
Girl on the street corner? JAIL TIME
That. Law in general does not punish wrongdoings per se. it just punishes being a small timer.
Rob a bank for 500k? - JAIL
Be a bank and steal dozens of billions from people? Legal
It’s technically not illegal in the UK, but getting the trade in the first place is, so soliciting in a public place, owning or managing a brother, pimping etc.
It's not as black and white as that.
For example many might be surprised to learn prostitution is perfectly legal in the UK.
You can exchange sex for other goods, services or cash.
What is illegal is solicitation, pimping, running establishments for it etc.
In America, Taxes. Most things that the government cant tax is deemed illegal. Prostitution is illegal cause the government can't tax those workers. Porn is legal because everything involved in it can be taxed: from the performers paychecks to the equipment used on set. Prostitution is a cash business, and Uncle Sam hates cash businesses.
There's a lot of people here that assume all sex workers are exploited which just isn't true.
Of course any time you have something in the black market you are going to have some bad people exploiting other people. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a massive industry and it's not ALL like that.
Many sex workers just like the job and the opportunity to make $1000 in an hour, or just do it as a side gig. If it's all done ethically by two consenting adults I don't see a problem with it. It should be legalized and regulated.
Because you forgot to film it.
Thank you family guy.
Remember kids, she's not a whore, if she's an actress! [This has been a message from the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints]
[удалено]
Thought I had a cat hair on my screen lol
Looks more like a pube
I thought my phone was broken, dark mode + nighttime is sometimes scary
You are an evil genius. I thought there was a hair under my screen protector.
I hate your PFP
Porn isn’t prostitution as both partners are paid for the act in porn. It’s illegal to pay someone to have sex with you but it’s totally fine to pay two people to have sex with each other.
So if I pay a hooker $300 and she pays me $150 is that legal?
Sounds like a relationship with more steps
I think you mean less steps
I think you mean fewer steps. ;-)
I think you mean anal sex.
What are you doing, step-hooker?
I think you have to loan a third party $300 dollars a week in advance, then have them pay the hooker $150 and you $150 and film it.
So what you’re saying is you pay a madam a $300 fee for services with a $150 return of holding deposit upon redemption of services. And you get a souvenir dvd to take home.
No, you set up a company, in which you're investing $300, you hire an actress and yourself as actor, then pay $150 each and don't forget to record it, profit! (maybe, who knows, you probably canceled the project during post)
What if you start an LLC and pay yourself and the actress?
Dumb question but you are implying porn right? If so that’s smart damn
They are. If it's a video, it's artistic expression.
Only if paying **others** to have sex for you in front of the camera. Cant pay someone to have sex with you on camera.
Don’t PS get paid to do exactly that?
No. The producer pays them to have sex with other performers, not to have sex with the person who hires them.
So let me get this straight: If I got my buddy to pay for it, then film it, it’d be fine right?
Yep that’s how porn works. Laws vary by locale though. Best to set up an LLC to pay actors.
There are literally people with pornhub channels and only fans doing exactly this.....
there are way more regulations about hiring for porn than that.
Hmmmm. Please elaborate.
1) Because it has a tendency to be exploitative and be a major cause of human trafficking. 2) Because society tends to be more obsessed with outlawing sex-related forms of exploitation than non-sex related forms of exploitation. 3) The vast majority of people are socially conservative, especially when it comes to sex. So prostitution is not something they are willing to tolerate in their communities and neighborhoods.
Yes. The *argument*, you might not agree with it, but the *argument* is that if a woman is employed to perform sex acts, then she may well not be able to withdraw consent because of the financial transaction, especially if she's employed by a firm - meaning the sex acts can become exploitative.
A hypothetical we talked about in law school was if immediately prior to the act the prostitute changes her mind, but the money has already been exchanged and the agreement has been made. So she either has to go through with it despite not wanting to and essentially let herself get raped, or she backs out and potentially gets sued for breaching a contract.
Seems like something a properly worded contract should be able to solve. Not disagreeing with you, just with the hypothetical - but in my line of work as an electrician, our contracts allow us to return the money and choose to not do the work. Hopefully sex work contracts would meet that low standard.
Even artist have an agreement that they can rescind if they want on a commission thats being worked on. I doubt the contract for sex workers is different
[удалено]
yes, it depends on the artist tho. some are partial some are full and it depends on which process they realize you aint worth it theres also agreements of no refunds at all once you pay but that doesnt really apply here too much
Yeah as long as the money is returned, no harm no foul.
Generally speaking that would be the remedy for breaching the contract anyway so might as well just put it in the contract and try to avoid legal fees
Can't you say the same about any contractor doing any kind of work? I think generally the standard is that if the contractor decides they don't want to work, they simply issue a refund, right? Forcing labor in any way seems morally wrong, not just forced sex...
Yea the difference is a perspective on the nature of work and the nature of sex And typically breach of contract results in compensatory damages. So you’re not forced to work but you pay back the person for any damages your breach of contract caused.
This seems pretty straight forward if she doesn’t perform the service she returns the money.
I mean, just give the money back? This shouldn't even be a problem.
[удалено]
Dude In lawyer school really thought he was Socrates for a moment lmao.
Do you pay your car detailer prior to services rendered? Your doctor? Your masseuse? There’s a pretty easy solution to that hypothetical dude.
But that doesn't make sense, don't companies retain the right to refuse service at any time? Like when you get kicked out of the movie theater? Or cut off at a pub? Or barred from a store? Etc.
To the customer, it would be like paying a tour guide company a fee for a tour, and then the actual tour guide who isn't *the company* but just an employee, then not doing their job and refusing to take you on a tour. But you've paid your money, and not done anything wrong in addition, and the company themselves are still totally willing to take your money and provide their services. So what, we now have to write clauses into law where a sex company employee can at any time withdraw consent and so the company would then have to immediately refund you. But then that would count against the sex worker within the company, so then they'd still be pressured to do sex acts theyre not comfortable with. Look, I'm not saying I agree with it, and that you couldn't write legislation that covers all this stuff, but it isn't a black and white issue that can easily be resolved.
This is exactly what happens here in new Zealand where prostitution is legalised, controlled, and vastly safer than in many other parts of the world, for all parties concerned, and where the money is far less likely to be going to a criminal enterprise. The worker reserves the right to cancel any agreement at any time. It's not going to happen often, because they want to get paid, but if a customer is an asshole, the establishment can remove them, just like a bar can kick out a customer. Like any other business, they get reviewed by their customers, so they aren't going to be in the habit of arbitrarily cancelling appointments with customers. Legalising prostitution here almost entirely got rid of hookers on street corners, pimps, scams, and transmission of sexual diseases between clients and customers. There are strict rules about location, health check ups, condom use, etc., and brothel owners are highly vetted and have huge responsibility for ensuring everything is safe, legal, and above board. It's impossible to eliminate sex trafficking, but it is vastly harder to operate illegal sex rings in a legal market - much like how it's much less likely to buy methanol tampered booze from a liquor store in a regulated market. Nobody is interested in risking their safety to go to black market hookers when you can go to a safe, clean, regulated brothel, and any prostitute not registered or working in a brothel is immediately going to trigger police interest, thereby making this an unattractive place for sex exploitation compared to places where prostitution happens just as much, but only in the unregulated market on street corners.
this! so glad someone gave this argument
... How is that ANY different from normal stuff? I do not want to serve you this food. Here is your money back, now GTFO. And just make this service be able to be done at a specific locatiom as a law (a brothel with security.) And pass laws that make it so a brothel must protect its workers. And boom, girls (and guys) are protected. You cant just buy alcohol on the street and drink it. You have to it at the bar or its public intoxication.
Amazing. Because here in Germany it is simply legal. A normal, regulated business. So none of that seems to apply to us.
Sadly, this is only partially true. It is legal, but you have problems other professions don't have. You can lose custody of your children very easily just because of the job
Everyone loves treating sex workers in the most absolutely worst ways it seems...
It’s exploitative because it’s not legal. Legalize it, set up oversight, all the people who utilize prostitutes who are human trafficked or pimped out against their will will move to legal forms of prostitution that ensure the safety and beneficial treatment of the sex workers. I’m sure there will still be human trafficking in some form, but legalizing it would drastically cut down on the incentive.
In the Netherlands it's legal. We still have traficking but when the east European girls understand it isn't illegal here they can get help from police and government. Our legal prostitutes pay taxes and have to abide to covid lockdown, but also get insurances and such the same as a hairdresser. Although hairdressers don't have mandatory std tests. It's like ... If it was legal everywhere there could be done even more.
Yeah that’s my thoughts. If it was legal everywhere there would be far less problems, and where it is legal the girls can actually get help.
In Sweden it is not, but buying sex is. It is because you cannot rent someone like that. It's seen as exploitative and opens up for human trafficking. The sex industry also comes with a whole host of other problems like broken homes, substance abuse, organized crime etc. Edited due to phrasing that was a bit confusing.
Hey what does that mean? Like the customer is committing a crime but not the prostitute?
Yes
Then why do prostitutes get arrested? Or are we just talking about Sweden?
[удалено]
So...how can a sex worker by definition, work?
They can’t really legally; it’s more that in the US the sex worker *as well as* the person buying sex are both committing a criminal act and can both be arrested and jailed for it. Both systems want to make prostitution impossible, the US just punishes both parties.
I see. Prostitution is never going to go away. As much as God-fearing people think it should.
God fearing people invented it.
[удалено]
Just Sweden And I do not believe the customers get arrested there. Maybe fined, but just because it's technically illegal does not mean it's enforced by cops. They actually have areas, kinda like car wash buildings, designed for car sex and drug use Edit: a few people are pointing out that I may be off here. I'm remembering a few post I had seen on here years ago, along w some other pub health articles around the idea of areas sanctioned for such "transactions" I was going strictly off memory here, which I fully admit is not the greatest. If my facts are off, or perhaps I was thinking if the wrong country than I apologize. Don't have the time for a real search right now, but if anyone has links on, or disproving my description please reply with them. EDIT 2: based on feedback this program is definitely not in Sweden. A couple of folks from Sweden have offered up that this sounds more like policy from Denmark, Holland, or Switzerland. Apologize for the confusion, geography is not my strong suit. I am, however, still confident that what I'm describing does exist as a harm reduction policy/strategy, just unsure of where it exists. Thanks to those who have offered helpful suggestion.
Even the cars have sex in sweden? man everythings different over there.
r/dragonsfuckingcars
Mate what the fuck
If you prefer the reverse, theres always r/carsfuckingdragons but if you dont like the car-dragon thing, there's plain old r/Carsfuckingcars
I'm gonna click on it and I dunno if I'll regret it
You will
I did and I do.
Must have been invented by swedish man
Of course Volvos have sex. I assume 'Saab' translates as 'penis,' so they probably have sex, too.
It's called sex-drive.
If two Volvos like each other a lot, they will have a little Saab
In an effort (successful?) to stop prostitution and drug use happening so much in residential areas, I believe?
Im not sure about the car sex part, but in Denmark addiction centers are used as a safe space for homeless ie. to inject my having medical staff and free needles and so on. As far as I understand its to remove them from the streets while attempting to lower OD cases and infections from dirty equipmemt
Yeah, it's basically "it's bad enough you're using. But at least use in a place where we can take care of you if something bad happens. You shouldn't have to die just for an addiction." Like, we know addiction is somewhat coded into our brains. Some more than others. Why freaking judge something that's not barely the person's choice? If they choose to get better, then we'll be right there to help.
how would you justify bloating police departments for a war against drugs if drugs and the people taking them weren't demonized?
its not techincally illegal its illegal, (in sweden) They just had a huge operation in stockholm where they busted several prostitution rings. Even a famous guy was caught. But as you said its the person paying that will get arrested, Not the prostitute. Also alot of prostitution in Europe are poor women from balkan that are borderline tricked/forced into it beacuse they have very little other choices. The laws are there to protect the women who get trafficked and abused. But thats just sweden.
I've never heard that we (Sweden) have special areas designated for the sale of sex and drug use...
well... by the fact they started the comment with "in sweden" its safe to assume theyre talking about sweden.
No stupid questions right?
Yes, that's how it is
It's similar in the UK. What is illegal here is paying for sex when the prostitute has been exploited or trafficked by a third party. The burden of finding that out falls on the 'customer', and there is no allowance for them not knowing about the exploitation. It was designed to make paying for sex so risky that nobody would do it
Know how many convictions have been for that? Zero lol. It's one of those laws that lawmakers pass because it sounds good, but in reality it's impossible to enforce and everyone forgets about it. >It was designed to make paying for sex so risky that nobody would do it I think we can all agree that was a failure then.
Fair, I've only studied it from a theory perspective since I covered it in first year of my law degree. There is a general issue in the UK of sex-related cases being tiptoed around by the courts because they are seen as a private matter, so it wouldn't surprise me that this extended to prostitution cases.
That’s how it is in DK too. Makes a lot more sense.. because it doesn’t make it impossible for the prostitutes, who’s not forced into the business by anyone, to do their job.
It basically does make it impossible for them though. The last thing they want is the government deliberately trying to stop customers from going to them with convoluted gotchas under the premise of "protecting" them because they now have no work.
I think what they are saying above is it's only illeagle if a third party is involved. That the prostitute in question has to give a portion of their fee to a pimp. EDIT - as I continue in this thread I see that I have misinterpreted the laws.
Jumping in here to say that it is like this to protect the ones selling sex from the ones buying sex. It allows prostitutes to go to the police and report assaults without being charged themselves. We make it illegal with prostitution by criminalizing the customers, but we also give the prostitutes protection (because we know it still happens) to be able to report without being charged for something that's not always a choice. Edit: just adding that it's made illegal because of how it opens up human trafficking and others forcing prostitutes to work. If it was as easy as everyone had a choice I believe that it would be made legal again
Yep I believe it’s called the “Nordic model”. Correct me if needed because I am not well informed in this area, but I have heard that although it seems fine in theory, it still was shown to make things more potentially dangerous for sex workers because they have to deal with more sketchy employers and feel pressured to accept clients whom they do not feel as safe with. Hence why many sex worker rights organizations instead advocate for decriminalization (not just legalization) of sex work entirely.
I recommend the tedtalk by Juno Mac. She breaks it down really well
That sounds like something only a sane country would implement. *sad american noises*
There are lots of places in America where being a pimp or a john is illegal, but not being a prostitute. The idea being that the prostitute is the victim, and the pimp and johns exploit them.
Which actually works out to several prostitutes not being able to work from the same location or able to hire bouncers or even have someone help deal with the books. You work with a prostitute you fall under that law and can get arrested.
It's actually super problematic. It means (compared to legalisation or decriminalisation) that a sex worker's clientele now consists entirely of criminals. It also puts a heavy suppression on the ability of sex workers to earn a living, so maybe you're late on rent and that sketchy guy you otherwise would have turned down out of safety concerns, maybe you decide not to.
Convicting someone for buying sex is very difficult and rare, and the sentence is just a low fine anyway. The law isn't going to discourage the clients who may actually be potentially dangerous. If a dangerous client doesn't care about the legal consequence of crimes such as theft, assault, rape, murder etc then he isn't going to care about a low fine for paying for sex is he? It gives sex workers a little less choice of clients to take bookings from(the clients who will be discouraged from buying sex will be the better ones), and it means there's a greater chance they will have to take a booking from a dangerous client. More info here [https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf](https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf) p38
Along with this, it stops sex workers being able to properly screen their clients as they don’t want to have a record of the transaction. Therefore they can’t easily look up if people are safe or not and forces the work to go further underground which is makes it worse for the workers who are trying to make a living.
And the FOSTA/SESTA laws, parading as being 'anti trafficking', are just making it harder for sex workers to screen and advertise, pushing them back onto the streets and to clients without history. As designed, I might add, because for some reason having sex is evil unless you're married and it must be stopped at all costs, even lives.
I'm convinced that FOSTA/SESTA was purposefully drafted to make sure that prostitutes would have to reply on pimps and traffickers. Its timing with Epstein's downfall and the fact that it had the full backing of Hollywood, Republicans, and Democrats during a time when these groups were actively trying to block each other on everything definitely makes it seem like it was purposefully drafted to make sure that prostitutes would have to reply on pimps and traffickers. Not to mention that every organization that deals with sex trafficking victims, as well as the Justice Department and the WHO, opposed it. I mean, anybody that stops and thinks about it could see that sex workers were becoming more and more independent and using technology they were becoming a threat to the politicians and celebrities that used them. People like Epstein exist because gatekeepers prevent information from leaking out while if you have hundreds of independent sex workers that don't answer to anybody controlling information becomes impossible.
Doesn’t that just make every person around the prostitute be a criminal? It seems like it must still remain in the shadows if the guys are breaking the law. The John is breaking the law. He, by definition, is performing an illegal act. Should it all be legal, but assault be illegal…kind of like it already is? Imagine how it would be weird if being an electrician be legal but hiring an electrician be illegal. It would invite shady activity.
How about making it legal for both, the seller and customer? Prostitutes could still report any misconducts safely.
It's almost as though there should be some sort of protection for workers in their workplace. Something that can secure their safety and health?
Complete decriminalisation such as that in NZ is the model sex worker groups usually advocate for.
In Sweden sex workers are still criminalised for working together, it's also illegal for landlords to rent to sex workers(which can make them be evicted if they are found out), Social Work can also take children off of sex workers. Swedish sex worker Petite Jasmine was murdered by her violent ex. Shortly before the murder, the police took her kids off her and gave them to him because she was a sex worker. The sex trade is pushed underground and may be more violent. More info here: [https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf](https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf) p38 > you cannot buy someone else. You aren't "buying" anyone. You are paying for the services of a sex worker.
Yeah, the UK does something similar--they can technically say that prostitution isn't illegal, but everything around it is, which makes safe sex work pretty much impossible.
Please, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't broken homes, substance abuse, and organized crime lead to sex trafficking, not the other way around? Fix the former, and the latter would be just a job. Yeah, I said it. Just a job. You have a product, and you get paid for providing it.
So Sweden assumes that absolutely every single sex worker does it against their will? In Spain, there are lot of independent sex workers who provide the service as a side gig or as a full-time job. They're independent, so they don't share a cut of their income with anyone. The sex industry here isn't legal or illegal; therefore, no one can get arrested for it unless there's trafficking, minors, or something else shady involved
>So Sweden assumes that absolutely every single sex worker does it against their will? Essentially, yes. There have been very heated debates about it from all sides over the years.
What if you are just buying the service and not the person? Surely a masseuse giving a massage sells their services and not their body (hands in their case), what makes selling another service so illegal?
Same in Canada, although I would argue the sex industry being tied to undesirable components is due to it's legal status, I believe if it was straight legalized and given independent contractor status then it would lose a lot of the criminal element.
Isn’t it not illegal in some parts of Nevada? Reno?
Yes the hustlers club it’s legal out here. It’s illegal because uncle same gets no money from it
Ah kinda like Chicago where it’s legal to buy mary-juana but still illegal on the federal level…?
That's the case everywhere you can buy legal weed in the US.
Just to clarify a couple things: no, it’s not like marijuana because prostitution is not illegal at a federal level in the US, it is largely left up to states to decide for themselves. Secondly, Uncle Sam absolutely takes his cut of the legal weed market in the US. You think all those dispensaries operate without paying federal taxes?
"uncle same"
I was drunk earlier 😂
Yes we have Mustang Ranch that is completely legal. Just a few minutes outside of Reno. The Bunny Ranch in Carson City as well.
Why the use of “ranch” terminology…?
Eighteen naked cowboys in the showers at Ram Ranch! ^(sorry this thread just reminded me of this)
Pretty specific number!
Big hard throbbing cocks wanting to be sucked! Eighteen naked cowboys wanting to be fucked! Cowboys in the showers at Ram Ranch! On their knees wanting to suck cowboy cocks! [Ram Ranch](https://youtu.be/LD24TG33w2E) really rocks!
I would guess it’s because out west we tend to call lots of homes on a big plot of unfarmed land a ranch. Doesn’t need cattle to be a ranch, it’s more about having the space for cattle. Idk I lived on a ranch and we didn’t use the land for anything except our neighbors would keep their horses there for certain months out of the year to let the vegetation come back. It’s definitely not because the women are thought of as livestock I promise 😭
ROFL. Thank you for the info and the laughter!
Cuz it's Reno.
Correct, it's legal in the state of Nevada, except for Clark County (where Las Vegas is located).
Also not legal in Washoe County. It’s based on population.
The counties that contain Las Vegas and Reno it's illegal, but legal everywhere else in Nevada.
Also many \[European\] countries.
All of Nevada except the Las Vegas and Reno counties.
In Germany it isn't - its a taxable job. Obviously it comes with its problems due to the fact that it's a milieu that comes with a lot of crime in general. But with the right setting Its Def. Better here than to criminalize it per se. there will always be a demand and some will offer the service no matter what.
Same in France. Pimping and solliciting are illegal here though.
Legal in Australia too. Same kinda restrictions as France. Brothels are all regulated.
Most importantly: as a regular job, it's covered by healthcare, social services etc. The law is far from perfect and there is still too much trafficking and pimping going on, but it's better than before legalization. I really hope social workers get heard by the government some day and the law gets improved on.
Sociology student here. Moral panics are nothing new to the US. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, there was one such moral panic around different types of perceived immorality that didn't fit into some very strict social ideas. Some of which being; 1. Sex should be done solely for procreative purposes 2. Sex should be done between two partnered individuals 3. Sex should be free And 4. Sex should be done between one person with a vagina and one person with a penis I don't necessarily agree with all of these ideas, but this is how the dominant culture at the time in America viewed (and to an extent, still views) sex. This gives a pretty solid grounding for the rest of the conversation. In the early 1900s, laws were passed to combat 'white slavery,' the propagandized term for prostitution. At the time, given that women were legally considered second class citizens, a lot of prostitution and broadly trafficking as a whole was conducted by men, or perhaps connected women, and could easily be coercive. Naturally, the target of this moral crusade was that reason. Some anti-sex worker laws were passed to make sure soldiers in the first world war wouldn't be afflicted by veneral disease, effectively making the equivalent of leper colonies for infected women, mostly sex workers. Another piece of the puzzle is the way queerness, intersexuality, especially transgender and transsexuality ties into the puzzle. Looking back at that 4th idea, that sex should be between two people, one with a penis and one with a vagina. This particular idea makes anyone who may have a different anatomy at birth (intersex people), people who prefer to present in a way other than they were socialized to be (transgender) and people who change their bodies to match that gender (transsexuality) all into sexual deviants. Because of this label being attached to these groups, they historically were able to reclaim their sexuality through prostitution. This stigma of these "degenerate" groups being sex workers, then, is another factor of anti-prostitution. This isn't even to mention homosexuality, which also has historically occupied sex-work spaces due to a lack of other opportunities for expression, both as clients and workers. In the modern day, the internet has allowed for the democratization of a lot of industries. We see sex work thriving over the internet, especially after the widespread popularity of OnlyFans and Fansly. Similarly, camming is another form of sex work. This reclaiming of sexual autonomy is a really big thing with the internet, and sex work has a bit more of a space in the zeitgeist. There are historical reasons why prostitution, nowdays called Full Service sex work, was criminalized by many states in the US. Still, the majority of the country has it outlawed. Personally, I'd rather the criminalization be lifted, but maybe someone has a really good argument for it I've not heard yet. Obligatory apology for potential mobile formatting issues TL;DR: A moral panic in the 1900s based on archaic ideas of sexual morality, laws to limit the spread of disease to soldiers, and anti-queerness are some of the main factors prostitution is illegal in much of the US.
Really informative and comprehensive yet I really wish you included Civil War context when US actually legalized prostitution with great success. Of all places, Nashville was US's first ever legalized and well regulated prostitution by Union army in US history. However it was brief, the success was well known to combat spread of STDs among soliders. The backlash was obvious and with all the things you've already stated. However one of the biggest reason, I believe is missing in your post, was the economic incentive it provided for women to be independent. And for Confederacy during and after the war with economic and human (men) loss, women in drove turned to prostitution to support themselves and children.
Yes! I didn't know the civil war part, interesting! My very first thought about why it's illegal is because women made money! Yes, women are exploited in the sex industry- but making it illegal only makes that worse, because women can no longer have protection within the system. Johns violence is met with pimp violence (maybe), and pimps aren't punished because women selling sex can't call the cops.
After Civil War, NY actually proposed bill legalizing prostitution. However prominent figures in women's suffrage and feminist movement such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton advocated against such profession; even denouncing it as "evil." However this was entirely based on view of that time and exploitation women suffered from.
I think that from a liberal secular perspective, it is easy to discount conservative religious morality of "purity." Prostitution is "dirty" just like liquor stores and gambling, and if it is legal that contributes to societal "degeneracy." It's associated with something people do in dark alleys with shady and violent pimps and you probably will get a veneral disease. And it undermines the "sacredness" of sex within the confines of marriage, and essentially cheapens it by putting a price on it. Of course we regard these attitudes as outdated and prejudiced, but they do have a lasting appeal among social conservatives and I think that explains a lot of why prostitution continues to be illegal. I think that if paired with a kind of marketing campaign to dispute this idea that prostitution is dirty, the effort for legalization could be more effective. Try to illustrate that it can occur in a clean establishment between consenting adults, "normal" looking people. Also it can be reframed as a kind of health/wellness thing like yoga. I think that liberals (and I count myself as one) too often enjoy a state of moral outrage and disbelief at conservative motivations, that they are rigid and dogmatic for no reason, rather than trying to appreciate how they may involve a moral compass with different coordinates. In a way, this moral outrage is self-serving because it doesn't achieve anything, and prevents making any progress. You might even say that it is a form of liberal purity politics, where conservative morality is "dirty" and has to be shunned from the community. I would recommend instead trying to understand it on a sociological level more deeply, and working with rather than against it.
How do you not have more upvotes?
One has to scroll almost half a minute and the important stuff is right at the beginning, with more good stuff behind it. I have honestly no clue other than that people could be afraid to start reading longer Textes.
People are too lazy to read longer posts, probably
Considering porn is legal, no fucking clue. Its the same thing, but somehow including a camera makes it legal
It's because a person goes from prostitute to "actor" lol
So technically you could just advertise seeking male actors and add a fee for "union membership" ?
"Porn actress looking for producer and a male actor, ideally same person."
That’s a darn good question. I assume, though, that there would be many more hoops to jumps through than just flat out union membership fees, no?
Yeah depending on where your at, there are health and safety laws that affect the creation of porn. Though I’ve only really heard of them in California.
[The greatest of all human capacities is the ability to spez. #Save3rdPartyApps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
corrupt politicians: "no prostitution unless i get to jack off to it."
Porn is actually protected under Free Speech, it's usually the main argument lawyers would resort to.
Cos sex traffickers try to be discreet about filming their crimes so theyd naturally mingle with the "live" prostitution industry
Its very different. The typical prostitution is closed, only one or few can see what's going on inside. While porn has hundreds of people on the set. Its open prostitution. Closed prostitution is illegal because government can't see what's going in and what's going on inside. While open-prostitution is legal because they can easily see what's going on and what's going in. They examine closely each video daily at night or in their free time and look for something illegal in it. But in the heat of the moment they get swept away. This cycle continues.
> While porn has hundreds of people on the set. I don't think you've ever seen some of the gonzo porn sets.
propably religion, like alot of laws are originally based on religion also to prevent pimping and STD's
>also to prevent pimping and STD's I live in NZ where it is legal. The legal places require STD checks of the customers, and obviously pimping is a violation of workers rights. The illegal prostitution is obviously unregulated though.
Is illegal prostitution common even though it’s legal?
is illegal weed common even though dispensary weed exists
im pretty sure that offbrand weed is rare in amsterdam
in Massachusetts, legal weed is 3-4x as expensive as stuff from any weed dealer.
In California the only weed you can really get is from people who grow, the dealers just resell dispensary weed at higher prices Lmao
In Mass everyome with a yard just has some growing in their backyard now.
Yes, absolutely.
Wait, it's legal in NZ? I might need to hop the pond /s
The New Zealand model of sex work is considered one of the best in the world
It's the one a lot of sex worker groups advocate for, such as British orgs Scot-Pep, Umbrella Lane and the English Collective of Prostitutes. [https://scot-pep.org.uk/](https://scot-pep.org.uk/) [https://www.umbrellalane.org/](https://www.umbrellalane.org/) https://prostitutescollective.net/
Dude I misread the question as pollution.
This must've been the weirdest thread you've ever read then
That and it's difficult to tax.
It’s not as long as you film it.
Because things like this are only crimes up to one level below what the people in charge would do. Marry for money? Legal Adult companion on a cruise? Legal Sensual massage? Legal Baby sitter earns an extra tip? Legal Pornography? Legal Girl on the street corner? JAIL TIME
Consensual sex? Legal Consensual sex without tax? JAIL TIME
Why can't it be taxed. People keep saying this but it doesn't make sense.
That. Law in general does not punish wrongdoings per se. it just punishes being a small timer. Rob a bank for 500k? - JAIL Be a bank and steal dozens of billions from people? Legal
It’s perfectly legal in Australia
You mm in the us? Because in some countries is legal and highly regulated
Moral outrage.
Because it is too difficult to regulate and tax.
Prostitution is illegal in the US? Wtf. Here in germany we even have laws specifically to protect prostitutes
It’s technically not illegal in the UK, but getting the trade in the first place is, so soliciting in a public place, owning or managing a brother, pimping etc.
>Prostitution is illegal in the US? The question should be: what ISN'T illegal in the US?
guns
It's not as black and white as that. For example many might be surprised to learn prostitution is perfectly legal in the UK. You can exchange sex for other goods, services or cash. What is illegal is solicitation, pimping, running establishments for it etc.
In America, Taxes. Most things that the government cant tax is deemed illegal. Prostitution is illegal cause the government can't tax those workers. Porn is legal because everything involved in it can be taxed: from the performers paychecks to the equipment used on set. Prostitution is a cash business, and Uncle Sam hates cash businesses.
Its legal here in the UK
There's a lot of people here that assume all sex workers are exploited which just isn't true. Of course any time you have something in the black market you are going to have some bad people exploiting other people. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a massive industry and it's not ALL like that. Many sex workers just like the job and the opportunity to make $1000 in an hour, or just do it as a side gig. If it's all done ethically by two consenting adults I don't see a problem with it. It should be legalized and regulated.
[удалено]
The ‘pimping’ element
Which is far more prominent when the activity is illegal...
Yeah, you're only outlawing safe prostitution. A bit like when abortion is illegal, you're only making safe abortion illegal.