Youre downvoted but have a good point. I agree its a victimless crime and so the govt has no business regulating it, but pushing for destigmitization is a different kind of social change. Why is that important?
I'd say it's because your primary base of support is going to come from people who are tired of the thing being stigmatized. Of course they're going to want to fight against that - it's only natural.
I know a lot of guys who dont wake up every day and say they want to sell their bodys for hard labor to the highest bidder, but it's decent work. Similar to how women can contract incurable, potentially-lethal venereal diseases as prostitutes, jobs like construction can really mess up a man's body. Doesn't mean we should ban them.
Many jobs are somewhat like that, but it's a matter of degree. Compare the market price of the job to the price that would lead people to want to take the job.
A lot of people would be willing to become a janitor at 3 times the market wages for janitors. A lot of people who are physically able to do construction work would take the job at 3 times the market rate for construction work. Not a lot of people would be willing to become a prostitute at 3 times the market rate for prostitutes.
This means that prostitution is much farther on the scale of "forced into by circumstances" than janitors or construction workers.
>Not a lot of people would be willing to become a prostitute at 3 times the market rate for prostitutes.
Citation please. I find it very hard to believe that prostitution is immune to the same price based supply and demand forces that every other labor pool is.
The problem is that people who become prostitutes are often people who have no other choice. So you'll get a bifurcated distribution: people who will only take the job at some incredibly high multiple (because prostitution is really awful compared to other choices) and people who will take the job at any price because the janitors aren't hiring and they need to eat. The point of the comparison is to capture this problem.
True. Ultimately, the problem which requires a solution is not decriminalization of the prostitution but the origin of why people get into the situation where prostitution starts looking as a way out. But, since no one cares, decriminalization is a good thing to do - excluding people from the society for getting into the situation, which is a product of this society, is unfair
Yet, many men wake up with the desire to build things. That is not an atypical desire. Many men wake up with a desire to build things for money. Many women do as well.
Few people wake up wanting to sell their procreative parts to the highest bidder.
If you're okay with one of these things but not the other, then you are applying a double standard based on a moralisation of sex. Sex as labour is no different than any labour, and there is no criticism of sex work that is whole an complete that does not also criticise the very system you're defending.
If that is true, then a thought experiment would be: should refusing to enter prostitution be a grounds for losing jobseekers' welfare, eg. jobseekers allowance [1]?
It's comparable to working in a butcher that specialises in pork. Clearly, the job would be unsuitable for a Muslim or vegan jobseeker. That's why the government website specifies suitable jobs and has an exception for a good reason not to do the job.
I agree with the general principle that not all labour is the same, but I don't think prostitution is in a class of its own. If you paid me enough I'd probably do it for a week and then retire.
> If you paid me enough I'd probably do it for a week and then retire.
Maybe this means that you don't really like your job? If you had access to the same goods as everyone else around you, more or less, and liked what you are doing, then doing it for a week stops making sense, doesn't it?
For me it would've been ok to work 6/5(better 6/4) for the rest of my life if it actually was something meaningful for the society, and if I had an opportunity to occasionally switch to smth different, and if i got a stable life for it. Even if i didn't like the job with all my heart
Sex is very different. Last I checked, no matter how much construction work you do, you will never construct another person, even by accident.
Sex is not just another activity. Due to its effects of potentially creating a new human being, it is a category unto itself and deserves special treatment.
For example, would you sell your pancreas? Why not? Is it because a vital organ is not in the same class of goods as say a lightbulb?
The same is true of selling sex, which is not just some social interaction, but a social interaction that can literally make a new person
Your kind of equivocation is morally lazy and conveniently abiological.
> For example, would you sell your pancreas? Why not? Is it because a vital organ is not in the same class of goods as say a lightbulb? [...] Your kind of equivocation is morally lazy and conveniently abiological.
Speaking of lazy, that's a pretty ridiculous comparison. Depriving yourself of a vital organ is not the same as renting out your genitals for a limited time.
"Making a new person" is also a complete red herring. You can hire a surrogate to carry a baby to term, which is also paying to use someone else's genitals to actually make a new person. The only meaningful difference is the absence of "sex", so I think it's clear what you really have a problem with.
> You can hire a surrogate to carry a baby to term
In the vast majority of first world countries this is illegal for precisely the reasons I described. Only extremely poor countries or barbaric jurisdictions, such as California, allow paid surrogacy.
> not the same as renting out your genitals for a limited time.
Given the genitals ability to produce life that can last many years beyond yourself, you're absolutely right. Renting out your genitals is much worse.
> In the vast majority of first world countries this is illegal for precisely the reasons I described.
No it's not. The potential to make humans is not equal to the intentional act to create humans, just like the potential to commit murder is not the same as the intentional act to commit murder.
> Only extremely poor countries or barbaric jurisdictions, such as California, allow paid surrogacy.
You definitely need to update your list, because more states are surrogate friendly than aren't.
Because the action under consideration is of a wholly different class than the others you mention.
For example, we regulate ivf, don't we? Why? Because the action undertaken has the ability to create new life.
The same is true of prostitution. The action undertaken is of a wholly different nature. Namely it can create people, which is different than any other labor.
Tolerating homosexual prostitution is actually more akin to your other analogies in that the action undertaken is not special. Although anal intercourse in general ought to be discouraged due to its deleterious health effects.
> For example, we regulate ivf, don't we? Why? Because the action undertaken has the ability to create new life. The same is true of prostitution.
No, we don't regulate it because it can create new life, we regulate it because it falls under healthcare for which doctors have a certain duty of care, and if IVF is done poorly it can cause all sorts of deleterious health effects for the mother and the implanted embryo. These considerations do not apply to prostitution since we have contraception and abortion.
Nonsense, we directly regulate even that which is not about health care. For example, most countries limit the amount of children a man can sire via sperm donation.
> These considerations do not apply to prostitution since we have contraception and abortion.
Whose burden falls solely on the women, and for which large portions of the population would object to the use of abortion as birth control. Even many pro-abortion people object to abortion's use as birth control, because they view abortion as justified murder, but murder nevertheless.
No, abortion is not murder because fetuses do not have personhood under the law. It's clear you don't really understand the legal precedents you're pontificating on so I don't really see this going anywhere.
