Continuation Prostitution part 2

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Are you suggesting that stigma is good?

It's possible. Chesterton's fence.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dann

Nobody is fooled by words like sex worker or client.
Quote:
You whore legal sex worker. You are a whore legal sex worker, and your mother was a whore legal sex worker, and her mother, and your father used to turn tricks serve clients at a gas station, cause he was a whore legal sex worker too. and I got a piece of that purchased the same service too
Prison Break, Season 4 (quotes.net)

What on earth has happened in your past to make you hate women so much?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What on earth has happened in your past to make you hate women so much?

Exactly. The misogyny in his posts is profound.

[dann]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What on earth has happened in your past to make you hate women so much?

Originally Posted by lionking

Exactly. The misogyny in his posts is profound.

What on earth makes you believe that it is misogyny to find that women shouldn't be coerced into having sex with men they don't like?
Your misogyny is conspicuous. Pretending that people who criticize your attitude are misogynists does nothing to hide the fact.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's possible. Chesterton's fence.

No, it isn't.
Stigmatize the people who want women to continue to sell sex to pay the rent and the people who make a profit by making them do it.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Roundly agreed. But if prostitution were being legalized, doesn't most of the stigma kind of vanish, apart from some religious yahoos who no one is reaching anyway? The whole point of legalization is to turn the trade into a respectable and legal profession, so why keep treating it as something shameful that has to be anonymous? Can't really do both, unless there's a subtext that it really isn't respectable, but damn I wants to poke a bitch (obvious facetiousness is obvious).

You seem to have turned away from what was your original objection, i.e. what prostitutes are forced to do, and now it's all about people
s attitude, i.e. if only people wouldn't stigmatize prostitution, it would be grand: legal sex work with proper clients etc. If only people wouldn't think of this trade as something shameful. (Which it isn't, by the way. The disgrace is that some people are fine with others being forced to do it.)

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by dann

At this point, I don't think that writing erotic fiction is frowned upon by anybody other than a few religious fundamentalists.
At least in Denmark, a number of recognized authors write erotic fiction, and when some of them use pseudonyms, it's not to hide who they are but to make it obvious to their readers what kind of fiction they are buying. They are very open about it in interviews. It has been legal since 1967.

... Oh! You mean outed as a legal prostitute.
You should have said so!

But yes, I agree. The euphemism won't do anybody any good - except for people who are very fond of euphemisms for their own sentimental reasons.
Nobody is fooled by words like sex worker or client.



A rose by any other name ...

Weird rant, I was literally talking about sex workers who aren't by any definition "prostitutes", like pornography actors or dancers at topless bars, and how the longtime legalization of these lesser forms of sex work hasn't done much to destigmatize them

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by dann

You seem to have turned away from what was your original objection, i.e. what prostitutes are forced to do, and now it's all about people
s attitude, i.e. if only people wouldn't stigmatize prostitution, it would be grand: legal sex work with proper clients etc. If only people wouldn't think of this trade as something shameful. (Which it isn't, by the way. The disgrace is that some people are fine with others being forced to do it.)

Ok, sidebar time: most of the threads I get active on are topics I never really gave much thought to. My opinions have changed from the discussion here. That's...kind of the whole point of a discussion, isn't it?

Now, I can see a legalized model that isn't exploitative to the women by nature. Some women are making a choice, in control and eyes open, similar to actors who can play a role doing something they don't mind, and maybe get a kick out of. I'm thinking partially of the schoolteacher I read about, who worked summers at a Nevada brothel literally for the erotic thrill and empowerment she got out of it, and it got me thinking about young women I might have met when I was younger, DTF at the drop of a hat with strangers at a bar. Hell, some would bang some random guy "for the hell of it", having no interest in the dude at all. I can see them pursuing this professionally without being a victim.

The women in The Atheist's description make sense to me now in a way they didn't earlier, and I think we need to be reasonable in affording them safety and respect in their career choice. That doesn't change two aspects: 1) most guys seeking the services are still pretty sad and could use some serious fixing, and 2) the majority of young women in the profession get into it out of desperation or coercion, and horrifically underage at that. So my position on sex work across the board is the same, but with much broader exceptions, and I think that's a good thing.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Oh look, more squirming and evading on an "irrelevant" matter you brought up.
Pathetic really.

In a totally surprising turn of events, you took the time to snip out the NJDCA PDF link I provided which plainly spells out the requirements I referred to.

Shocking.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by dann

At this point, I don't think that writing erotic fiction is frowned upon by anybody other than a few religious fundamentalists.
At least in Denmark, a number of recognized authors write erotic fiction, and when some of them use pseudonyms, it's not to hide who they are but to make it obvious to their readers what kind of fiction they are buying. They are very open about it in interviews. It has been legal since 1967.

... Oh! You mean outed as a legal prostitute.
You should have said so!

But yes, I agree. The euphemism won't do anybody any good - except for people who are very fond of euphemisms for their own sentimental reasons.
Nobody is fooled by words like sex worker or client.



A rose by any other name ...

“Sex worker” is not a euphemism for prostitute. It is a somewhat broader category than that. It includes strippers, escorts, prostitutes, porn stars and go-go dancers.

It does nut usually refer to writers of erotic fiction, however.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Roundly agreed. But if prostitution were being legalized, doesn't most of the stigma kind of vanish, apart from some religious yahoos who no one is reaching anyway? The whole point of legalization is to turn the trade into a respectable and legal profession, so why keep treating it as something shameful that has to be anonymous? Can't really do both, unless there's a subtext that it really isn't respectable, but damn I wants to poke a bitch (obvious facetiousness is obvious).

Wouldn't have thought so, even areas in which a ton of positive "PR and marketing" has occurred - for example homosexuality - it does not see "stigma" ending.

Decriminalising will help to start to shift the general attitude, but it could take literally generations before it entirely disappears.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

Wouldn't have thought so, even areas in which a ton of positive "PR and marketing" has occurred - for example homosexuality - it does not see "stigma" ending.

Decriminalising will help to start to shift the general attitude, but it could take literally generations before it entirely disappears.

Ok, "vanish" was too strong a term, agreed. I was thinking along the lines of it becoming a legal activity, instead of criminal. The stigma we keep talking about is partially the moral view of the work, and partially the demonstrable criminality. If the criminality "vanished" overnight, I'd expect the stigma to soften quickly.

Eta: I'm thinking of pot being legalized in the States. Prior to state level legalization, a seller was just a drug dealer. Afterwards, he was quickly more like a businessman.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Ok, "vanish" was too strong s term, agreed. I was thinking along the lines of it becoming a legal activity, instead of criminal. The stigma we keep talking about is partially the moral view of the work, and partially the demonstrable criminality. If the criminality "vanished" overnight, I'd expect the stigma to soften quickly.

But that's not the case for long legal forms of sex work right now and I see no reason for that to change anytime soon.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

No, it isn't.

Why not? If prostitution is bad for society (which I consider an open question), then stigmatism is a mechanism to reduce it, and does so without a lot of the drawbacks that legal prohibition produces.

Quote:

Stigmatize the people who want women to continue to sell sex to pay the rent and the people who make a profit by making them do it.

That's not mutually exclusive with stigmatizing prostitution itself. It's almost a logical corollary.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

But that's not the case for long legal forms of sex work right now and I see no reason for that to change anytime soon.

I get that, but I think it is largely fueled by the perception that the woman has nothing else to offer except to take off her clothes for money. Which is not exactly a big contribution to society, carreer-wise. Contributing to the objectification of women wouldn't be as beneficial to the community as our intrepid manual laborer or the garbage collector, for instance.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I get that, but I think it is largely fueled by the perception that the woman has nothing else to offer except to take off her clothes for money. Which is not exactly a big contribution to society, carreer-wis

Kinda begging the question here, aren't you? People are more complex than their careers. It's generally seen as reductive, if not outright insulting, to make sweeping assumptions about people based on the stereotypes of a given job. I presume you would begrudge being seen as a knuckle-dragging illiterate simply because you work in the building trades. I guess some people are really personally invested in their jobs as an identity, for others it's just a way to pay their bills. Work is what you do to pay for the things you'd actually like to do in life.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Contributing to the objectification of women wouldn't be as beneficial to the community as our intrepid manual laborer or the garbage collector, for instance.

Depends on how you assess worth I suppose. The market seems to think sex work is pretty valuable.

Edit: I also don't see how this assessment would change if all sex work were legalized. If the root of the stigma is the view that commodifying sex is inherently base, then legal status won't change that at all.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Are you suggesting that stigma is good?

Why are you pretending it isn't?

You stigmatize things all the time, in the hope that it will discourage people from activities you disapprove of. Now you're going to come crying crocodile tears about "bUt sTiGmA Is bAd!"

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Kinda begging the question here, aren't you? People are more complex than their careers. It's generally seen as reductive, if not outright insulting, to make sweeping assumptions about people based on the stereotypes of a given job.

Talking about why the stigma persists, I think it's a reasonable explanation.

Quote:

I presume you would begrudge being seen as a knuckle-dragging illiterate simply because you work in the building trades.

No, that's pretty much spot on.

Quote:

I guess some people are really personally invested in their jobs as an identity, for others it's just a way to pay their bills. Work is what you do to pay for the things you'd actually like to do in life.



Depends on how you assess worth I suppose. The market seems to think sex work is pretty valuable.

Valuable =/= beneficial. There's a high value put on many stolen goods too, but that doesn't boost the respectability of a carjacker.

[theprestige]

Almost a Third of Female Surgeons Report Sexual Assault.

Around two-thirds of female surgeons have experienced sexual harassment from colleagues, and almost one in three has been sexually assaulted by a colleague, according to a new report, described as "harrowing" and "horrifying" by NHS Providers and the British Medical Association.

[...]

Harassment included jokes with sexual content; displaying sexualised pictures; unwanted/sexual e-comms, physical advances, or sexual talk; uninvited comments about the body; asking for a date despite previous refusal; being offered career opportunities for sex; being threatened for refusing sexual favours, and deliberately infringing body space.

I suspect there may indeed be a broad consensus that sex is a special category of human experience and activity, that merits special consideration in public policy.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Talking about why the stigma persists, I think it's a reasonable explanation.



No, that's pretty much spot on.



Valuable =/= beneficial. There's a high value put on many stolen goods too, but that doesn't boost the respectability of a carjacker.

I'm not sure what we're really talking about anymore.

To drag this back to what spawned this line of inquiry, the whole point was that a deep cultural stigma against sex work is probably something to keep in mind when designing any licensure scheme. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't fully license and clean up the sex trade, but you probably ought to take into consideration the special privacy concerns a sex worker might have when it comes to publicly available license information that other, not stigmatized jobs don't worry about.

If you think the stigma against sex work is rooted in the idea that commodifying sex is inherently base, which seems most likely to me, then changing the legal status of sex work will not change this stigma much itself. Therefore, any legalization scheme needs to be practical about what impediment this stigma might have in attempting to drag the sex trade into the daylight and plan accordingly.

If legal sex work requires outing yourself to your entire community as a sex worker, odds are good you'll have lots of noncompliance and license evasion, which is counterproductive.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Almost a Third of Female Surgeons Report Sexual Assault.

Around two-thirds of female surgeons have experienced sexual harassment from colleagues, and almost one in three has been sexually assaulted by a colleague, according to a new report, described as "harrowing" and "horrifying" by NHS Providers and the British Medical Association.

[...]

Harassment included jokes with sexual content; displaying sexualised pictures; unwanted/sexual e-comms, physical advances, or sexual talk; uninvited comments about the body; asking for a date despite previous refusal; being offered career opportunities for sex; being threatened for refusing sexual favours, and deliberately infringing body space.

I suspect there may indeed be a broad consensus that sex is a special category of human experience and activity, that merits special consideration in public policy.

I wonder if these people consider a guy making a sexual joke to another guy to be sexual harassment (a "real man" is into such things), or if the subtext is that women are too virginal to be exposed to such things?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm not sure what we're really talking about anymore.

To drag this back to what spawned this line of inquiry, the whole point was that a deep cultural stigma against sex work is probably something to keep in mind when designing any licensure scheme. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't fully license and clean up the sex trade, but you probably ought to take into consideration the special privacy concerns a sex worker might have when it comes to publicly available license information that other, not stigmatized jobs don't worry about.

If you think the stigma against sex work is rooted in the idea that commodifying sex is inherently base, which seems most likely to me, then changing the legal status of sex work will not change this stigma much itself. Therefore, any legalization scheme needs to be practical about what impediment this stigma might have in attempting to drag the sex trade into the daylight and plan accordingly.

The overall point I am making is that it seems inconsistent to legalize it, which is saying the "culture" is accepting this, and at the same time saying "oh God this is so ****** up we need to hide those who actually do it". I mean, mixed messages?

Quote:

If legal sex work requires outing yourself to your entire community as a sex worker, odds are good you'll have lots of noncompliance and license evasion, which is counterproductive.

If so, than the community needs to reevaluate how socially acceptable they view this. Barring the occasional religious nut who will never sway, the broader community is legally stamping this as ok or not ok. "Ok but Jesus keep y'all freaks out of sight" doesn't feel right, although I can see it's transitionary benefit.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The overall point I am making is that it seems inconsistent to legalized it, which is saying the "culture" is accepting this, and at the same time saying "oh God this is so ****** up we need to hide those who actually do it". I mean, mixed messages?

If so, than the community needs to reevaluate how socially acceptable they view this. Barring the occasional religious nut who will never sway, the broader community is legally stamping this as ok or not ok. "Ok but Jesus keep y'all freaks out of sight" doesn't feel right, although I can see it's transitionary benefit.

I guess it depends on what you think the point of legalization is. If you think it's to signal moral approval, yeah it's odd.

If your goal is harm mitigation of a notoriously sleezy black market business, it's perfectly coherent to recognize that even an above board version that's much, much better might still carry significant social stigma.

Pointing out that prohibition has many serious unintended negative consequences doesn't mean you have to fully embrace the underlying behavior.

Edit: The alcohol prohibitionists had a lot of good points about the harms of alcohol, and that remains true today, but prohibition was a pretty objectively a failed social policy that incurred huge costs in proportion to whatever good it intended to do. I see the two issues pretty similarly.

harm mitigation strategies often run into this problem, where policies that pretty objectively result in better outcomes often run into criticism from moralists who think doing anything other than criminalizing a problem behavior is somehow evil.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I guess it depends on what you think the point of legalization is. If you think it's to signal moral approval, yeah it's odd.

If your goal is harm mitigation of a notoriously sleezy black market business, it's perfectly coherent to recognize that even an above board version that's much, much better might still carry significant social stigma.

Argued way upthread. That's not a valid argument. Apply it to any currently illegal behavior: "you can't hurt a rapist, because it's healthier for him to not be injured when raping". "The quality of life of a thief would be greatly improved if we legalized his way of making a living". It's not a valid argument to justify legislation by pointing out that the criminal are better off.

Quote:

Pointing out that prohibition has many serious unintended negative consequences doesn't mean you have to fully embrace the underlying behavior.

Edit: The alcohol prohibitionists had a lot of good points about the harms of alcohol, and that remains true today, but prohibition was a pretty objectively a failed social policy that incurred huge costs in proportion to whatever good it intended to do. I see the two issues pretty similarly.

harm mitigation strategies often run into this problem, where policies that pretty objectively result in better outcomes often run into criticism from moralists who think doing anything other than criminalizing a problem behavior is somehow evil.

Agreed, repeal of prohibition is a good example, but in a different way. Society said "let's drink, and if you are still uptight about it, tough titties. It's here, we accept it, and manufacturers/sellers/users are not hiding in the shadows anymore".

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Argued way upthread. That's not a valid argument. Apply it to any currently illegal behavior: "you can't hurt a rapist, because it's healthier for him to not be injured when raping". "The quality of life of a thief would be greatly improved if we legalized his way of making a living". It's not a valid argument to justify legislation by pointing out that the criminal are better off.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Illegal drinkers dying of methanol poisoning during Prohibition was bad, despite them being criminals. It's good that ending prohibition of alcohol lead to less risk for drinkers, even if you think drinking is inherently destructive. Needle exchanges that reduce the spread of communicable diseases among illegal drug users is a good policy, even though these people are criminals. Regulation of the narcotics supply such that drug users knew the the contents and dose of their drugs would probably prevent a huge number of overdoses, which seems good despite these people being law breakers. This isn't an a pro-heroin position, merely harm reduction.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Agreed, repeal of prohibition is a good example, but in a different way. Society said "let's drink, and if you are still uptight about it, tough titties. It's here, we accept it, and manufacturers/sellers/users are not hiding in the shadows anymore".

I guess my point is that if personal anonymity is something that potential sex workers care a lot about, it's counterproductive to make a system that doesn't address these concerns. If a large portion of sex workers resort to working under the table rather than dealing with disclosure requirements of a legalized system, the policy is failing by its own terms to try to drag this industry out into the daylight.

It doesn't take that much effort to imagine a semi-anonymized licensing scheme that might do a lot to address potential "doxxing" concerns for sex workers while still being a useful indicator of legal compliance. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be employed?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I don't understand what you're saying here. Illegal drinkers dying of methanol poisoning during Prohibition was bad, despite them being criminals. It's good that ending prohibition of alcohol lead to less risk for drinkers, even if you think drinking is inherently destructive. Needle exchanges that reduce the spread of communicable diseases among illegal drug users is a good policy, even though these people are criminals. Regulation of the narcotics supply such that drug users knew the the contents and dose of their drugs would probably prevent a huge number of overdoses, which seems good despite these people being law breakers. This isn't an a pro-heroin position, merely harm reduction.

Yes, but the benefits are incidental to the repeal. Prohibition wasn't repealed because we were worried about rum runners health. Prohibition was repealed because Americans realized we really like to drink, and accepted this in a widespread open way, not clandestinely.

Quote:

I guess my point is that if personal anonymity is something that potential sex workers care a lot about, it's counterproductive to make a system that doesn't address these concerns. If a large portion of sex workers resort to working under the table rather than dealing with disclosure requirements of a legalized system, the policy is failing by its own terms to try to drag this industry out into the daylight.

It doesn't take that much effort to imagine a semi-anonymized licensing scheme that might do a lot to address potential "doxxing" concerns for sex workers while still being a useful indicator of legal compliance. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be employed?

I suppose a registration without publicly identifying info works just as well, as my interest is keeping the kids and other non-participants out of the game, not making them wear a Scarlet Letter. My issue with the anonymity is to question how much this is really accepted, and if it really isn't, if we should rethink the bounds.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yes, but the benefits are incidental to the repeal. Prohibition wasn't repealed because we were worried about rum runners health. Prohibition was repealed because Americans realized we really like to drink, and accepted this in a widespread open way, not clandestinely.

Disagreed. People also recognized that prohibition itself had negative unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by Thermal

I suppose a registration without publicly identifying info works just as well, as my interest is keeping the kids and other non-participants out of the game, not making them wear a Scarlet Letter. My issue with the anonymity is to question how much this is really accepted, and if it really isn't, if we should rethink the bounds.

Regarding sex work being simultaneously accepted and not accepted, I suppose it's just one of those things were people vary, and also individuals sometimes hold nuanced, often incoherent attitudes when it comes to morality.

Men hold famously insane complicated views when it comes to women's sexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonn...3whore_complex

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dann

What on earth makes you believe that it is misogyny to find that women shouldn't be coerced into having sex with men they don't like?

No. There is coercion where prostitution is a criminal offense. That coercion eventually all but evaporates when prostitution is made legal and there is no longer a possibility for criminal gangs to make huge amounts of money from the trade. You can deny it all you like, but your gross and disgusting opinions do not fly when confronted with facts. Over 20 years of legalized prostitution in New Zealand (20 to 30 years in Australia - state dependent) has dramatically improved the lives of those who do sex-work as a profession. This is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Originally Posted by dann

Your misogyny is conspicuous. Pretending that people who criticize your attitude are misogynists does nothing to hide the fact.

No. You are wrong! The over-arching act of misogyny here is denying women their human rights - denying them the choice to make their own decisions about what they are allowed do with her own body. It is manifested by men like you who want to hold women to arbitrary standards that YOU have set for them.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Eta: I'm thinking of pot being legalized in the States. Prior to state level legalization, a seller was just a drug dealer. Afterwards, he was quickly more like a businessman.

But I assure you, there are plenty of people in your country who still see them as drug dealers.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I wonder if these people consider a guy making a sexual joke to another guy to be sexual harassment (a "real man" is into such things), or if the subtext is that women are too virginal to be exposed to such things?

It's possible for a third party to file a complaint if they overhear or walk in on an inappropriate conversation, so yes.

Usually, a single instance does not constitute harassment, though, and it would only result in a warning.

People, both men and women, make sexual jokes a lot. Doing so in a work environment is not a good idea because work is not a private space with a clearly defined audience. I know that my brother-in-law was annoyed when he could no longer have pin-ups in his toolbox at work (machine shop), but eventually he had to grow up.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Argued way upthread. That's not a valid argument. Apply it to any currently illegal behavior: "you can't hurt a rapist, because it's healthier for him to not be injured when raping". "The quality of life of a thief would be greatly improved if we legalized his way of making a living". It's not a valid argument to justify legislation by pointing out that the criminal are better off.

It should be pointed out that in both rape and theft involve a party that is involuntarily involved in the transaction. That's a significant difference, unless you take the stance that sexual services cannot truly be voluntarily sold.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TomB

It should be pointed out that in both rape and theft involve a party that is involuntarily involved in the transaction. That's a significant difference, unless you take the stance that sexual services cannot truly be voluntarily sold.

Like all analogies, it's imperfect, but the point that it is irrational to say a crime should be legalized to lessen negative affects on the perpetrator stands.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TomB

It's possible for a third party to file a complaint if they overhear or walk in on an inappropriate conversation, so yes.

Usually, a single instance does not constitute harassment, though, and it would only result in a warning.

People, both men and women, make sexual jokes a lot. Doing so in a work environment is not a good idea because work is not a private space with a clearly defined audience. I know that my brother-in-law was annoyed when he could no longer have pin-ups in his toolbox at work (machine shop), but eventually he had to grow up.

OK, but my point was that if men were gauged by the same standard, wouldn't virtually 100% have been sexually harassed? I'd like to see things like 'telling an off color joke to someone else in hearing range' be removed from the classing of harassment, which suggests targeting the woman.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Like all analogies, it's imperfect, but the point that it is irrational to say a crime should be legalized to lessen negative affects on the perpetrator stands.

Counterpoint: It is irrational to continue criminalizing an activity not widely agreed to be antisocial.

A lot of people want sex. Some people are willing to pay for it. Some people are willing to sell it. A LOT of people think that buying and selling sex is okay, to some degree, at least in principle. And the demand is high enough that a lot of buyers and sellers are going to carry on buying and selling, whether it's against the law or not.

So why keep it against the law? Why give the buyers and sellers in our society grief about it? Why NOT legalize it to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators? Isn't that the most rational response?

We don't tell gay people to stop breaking the sodomy laws. We don't say it's irrational to legalize butt stuff to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators of butt stuff.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Thermal

OK, but my point was that if men were gauged by the same standard, wouldn't virtually 100% have been sexually harassed? I'd like to see things like 'telling an off color joke to someone else in hearing range' be removed from the classing of harassment, which suggests targeting the woman.

Sure. But....

What you are opening up a huge loophole of plausible deniability.
"Sure, Mark and I were making sexual jokes about blondes. But we were talking to each other. It's just a coincidence that Sally, who is blonde, has a desk next to Mark. We weren't talking to or about her."

It's not just about directly targeting a co-worker. It's about creating an uncomfortable environment for that co-worker. And it can go the other way.

Here's a real life example of a case that was also sexual harassment.

My former son in law got a job at a machine shop. There was another guy there who had been there for years who decided it was cool to harass the new guy. Basically, he did things like make jokes that he was homosexual and crap like that.

My son in law should have complained. And the guy who was doing it should have been fired. But he didn't. Instead, he finally got fed up and walked off the job.

That's called a hostile environment, and it's not cool or acceptable in any industry or trade. (I hope you don't tolerate that crap from your guys.)

Don't get me wrong, a little bit of razzing back and forth is to be expected. But there is a line. If it is making the workplace unpleasant for another worker, managers need to be observant and put a stop to it.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Counterpoint: It is irrational to continue criminalizing an activity not widely agreed to be antisocial.

A lot of people want sex. Some people are willing to pay for it. Some people are willing to sell it. A LOT of people think that buying and selling sex is okay, to some degree, at least in principle. And the demand is high enough that a lot of buyers and sellers are going to carry on buying and selling, whether it's against the law or not.

So why keep it against the law? Why give the buyers and sellers in our society grief about it? Why NOT legalize it to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators? Isn't that the most rational response?

We don't tell gay people to stop breaking the sodomy laws. We don't say it's irrational to legalize butt stuff to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators of butt stuff.

Well, yeah, agreed that the issue is whether it should be illegal at all. Not sure if "widely agreed to be antisocial" should be the benchmark, though, given that half of us are on the right-hand side of the antisocial spectrum.

The more I think about it, it should be treated like alcohol. Tight regulation about who can dispense, kids not allowed at all (maybe remove the at-home provisional use under parental supervision), generally out of the workplace and schools, etc. Not for use when driving or operating heavy machinery. Probably something about not in public view thrown in there somewhere. Oh, and raise the participant age to 21. If you're too immature to buy a beer, you probably shouldn't be selling bjs.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Like all analogies, it's imperfect, but the point that it is irrational to say a crime should be legalized to lessen negative affects on the perpetrator stands.

Well then, by using that logic, it was irrational to legalize the following (with USA dates of repeal in parentheses)

- Homosexual acts between consenting adults (2003).
- Miscegenation - interracial marriage and sex (1967).
- Women voting (1920 and 1965).
- Birth control (1965).
- The sale, distribution and consumption of alcohol (1933).
- Dancing to the national anthem or playing it with any embellishments (2015).
- Pinball (1972).
- Drinking on election day (2013).
- Playing football or golf, or going to the circus, or shopping - on a Sunday (1933,1952,1955 & mid 1960s in that order).
- Racial integration (1954 & 1964).
- Voting while under the age of 21 (1971).
- Being a communist (1972).
- Sex for pleasure, i.e. any reason other than procreation (1986 & 2003)
- Going topless (men 1936, women 2013)
- Adultery (mid 1950's)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You can't legally prohibit stigma.

And I'm not sure most people really understand the driving mechanisms behind such stigma, why sex work is looked down upon, and why slut shaming is a thing. Religious communities often adopt these taboos, but that's not really the source, and you'll still get it even without religion. I've often seen the claim that slut shaming is a form of patriarchal control, but it's really not. The primary driving motivation for slut shaming is intra-female competition. In western societies (we aren't counting stuff like the Taliban), females control access to sex, and scarcity drives up value. Promiscuity lowers sexual market value, and therefore hurts other women. Slut shaming is how women control other women. They usually recruit men to join in, but men aren't the source.

Legalizing prostitution may reduce the stigma surrounding sex work, but it's never going to eliminate it, because it won't eliminate the motivation for it. I'm not convinced that doing so would even be a good thing.

I've heard this argument put forth before, but I'm unconvinced that somehow slut shaming is truly the domain solely of females.

The desire for virgin brides was not a female invention. Males in general continue to strongly prefer that the females with whom they have sex have only very few (if any) prior sex partners.

And if we're being totally honest, females don't control access to sex. If we did... I guarantee there'd be no rape and no sexual assaults because we wouldn't allow it to happen at all. Throughout a very significant portion of our history, the winner in a war or battle would routinely rape all the females of the town they've taken over. If females actually controlled access to sex, that wouldn't happen.

Throughout most of history, females were quite literally sold into marriage - not at the hands of their female parents, but at the hands of their male relatives. It wasn't females controlling access to sex, it was males treating females as literal property, and selling them as breeding stock.

There is a competing theory to what you have put forth. Males control access to females for sexual purposes, because this is the only way to ensure paternity. We always know who the mother is. The only way to know who the father is... is to control which males get to have sex with the specific females in question.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Speaking of the long game, so far developed societies are failing it across the board. Birth rates globally are falling well below replacement almost everywhere that gets even moderately wealthy. Does legalized/destigmatized prostitution exacerbate that?

Honestly, who cares about birth rates falling. Isn't it a good thing if birth rates fall? Isn't overpopulation, and its amplification of waste products, one of the major causes of climate change?

I find the "birth rates are falling" argument to be weird almost every time I run across it. There's probably some good reason for the argument, it just isn't something I've been able to ferret out.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

In a totally surprising turn of events, you took the time to snip out the NJDCA PDF link I provided which plainly spells out the requirements I referred to.

Shocking.

I already had that doc, remember? I mentioned it previously.
And it doesn't support your assertions.