Sex work (digression from Charlie Kirk)

[southernhybrid]

Oddly enough, I found an article from Harvard that claims the opposite of the one that was posted by Toni. Go figure.

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/to-protect-women-legalize-prostitution/

When people argue prostitution should be illegal, in many cases their concern comes from a place of morality, presented as concern for the health and safety of women. People believe that legalizing prostitution will only lead to the abuse of more women, will make it harder for prostitutes to get out of the industry, or will teach young women that their bodies exist for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation by men.

However, legalizing prostitution has had positive benefits for sex workers across Europe. The most well-known country to have legalized prostitution is the Netherlands, where sex work has been legal for almost twenty years. Bringing the industry out of the black market and imposing strict regulations has improved the safety of sex workers. Brothels are required to obtain and renew safety and hygiene licenses in order to operate, and street prostitution is legal and heavily regulated in places like the Red Light District. Not only does sex work become safer when it is regulated, but legalization also works to weed out the black market that exists for prostitution, thereby making women safer overall. Also, sex workers are not branded as criminals, so they have better access to the legal system and are encouraged to report behaviors that are a danger to themselves and other women in the industry. Finally, legalizing sex work will provide many other positive externalities, including tax revenue, reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, and reallocation of law enforcement resources.

It’s true that current efforts by various European countries to legalize prostitution have been far from perfect. In the Netherlands, certain components of the legislation, such as requiring sex workers to register and setting the minimum age for prostitution at 21, could drive more sex workers to illegal markets. Not only that, but studies indicate that legalizing prostitution can increase human trafficking. However, even those who are critical about legalizing prostitution can recognize the benefits that legislation can have on working conditions for sex workers. If countries with legislation in place spend more time listeningto current sex workers, the results of decriminalizing prostitution include bringing safety, security, and respect to a demographic that has traditionally been denied such things.

The underlying reason that people are uncomfortable listening to sex workers about legalizing prostitution has nothing to do with concern for the health and safety of women. If that were the genuine concern, prostitution would be legal in the United States by now. The underlying reason people disagree with legalizing prostitution is that prostitution is viewed as amoral because it involves (mostly) women selling their bodies for financial gain. However, telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies does not come from a place of morality: that comes from a place of control.

People, especially women, sell their bodies for financial gain in legalized fashions on a daily basis. Pornography is legal, and so is exotic dancing. It’s common for people to have sexual relationships with richer partners so as to benefit from their wealth, whether this is through seeking out wealthy life partners or through the less formal but increasingly prevalent phenomenon known as sugar-dating. It’s also common for people to remain in unhappy relationships because they do not want to lose financial stability or spend money on a divorce.

 

[Bronzeage]

I would presume being an OnlyFans content creator would be considered sex work, no? I can't imagine this young lady would consider her job to be done "under duress":

OnlyFans’ Sophie Rain Says She ‘Almost Earned More Than’ LeBron James in 2024, Reveals Salary

OnlyFans creator Sophie Rain is pulling back the curtain on her finances and revealing how much she earns as an adult content creator.

“I almost made more than LeBron [James] last year,” Rain, 20, claimed in David Dobrik’s Tuesday, August 26, YouTube vlog. “He made 56 million [and] I made 43.”

She is an exception regarding the salary, but there are a lot of everyday women doing this sort of thing to earn a few extra dollars, and even end up dropping out of their current career to do it full time. They like it and do it of their own free will, and no pimp to take their money or bully them. I do wonder about the men who pay for this though. What a bunch of dopes.

In the Economic Science world, this is called "exploitation". Sophie controls a limited resource and can demand a higher price because the demand is great. This is the same principle that explains why a seat on a bus costs less than a seat at a Taylor Swift concert. Sophie is closer to Taylor's business model.

No argument here. But who is the "expoliter" and who is the "exploitee", in your opinion?

In the classical economic model, Sophie is the exploiter. Her audience are the exploited. She has a product which has a great demand and she can set the price to maximize return. In the example of a concert, there are a finite number of seats. If the seats are sold cheap, money is missed. If the price is too high, there will be empty seats. The key is too set the price which fills every seat. That is maximum exploitation. In Sophie's case, there are no seats. The only limit on her production is the bandwidth of the site. Her marginal cost when a new customer signs on and pays the membership fee, is zero.

I've never seen Sophie's performance on Onlyfans, but I can imagine most of it. Her cost of production is quite low, compared to Taylor. She certainly isn't spending a lot on wardrobe.

I confess to being baffled by the economics of pornography. I'm sitting at a computer that gives me free access to almost any sexual display for no cost. I really don't understand how anyone manages to sell something when most of the competition is giving away the same product, and besides that, anyone with access to it, can reproduce it at no cost.

 

[Derec]

I've never seen Sophie's performance on Onlyfans, but I can imagine most of it. Her cost of production is quite low, compared to Taylor. She certainly isn't spending a lot on wardrobe.

Me neither, so I cannot judge how elaborate her performances are, or what the production values are.

I confess to being baffled by the economics of pornography. I'm sitting at a computer that gives me free access to almost any sexual display for no cost. I really don't understand how anyone manages to sell something when most of the competition is giving away the same product, and besides that, anyone with access to it, can reproduce it at no cost.

I am not an OF connoisseur myself either, but my understanding is that for most OF subscribers, there is some form of interactivity, even getting custom videos for additional $$$.

 

[Derec]

It is exclusively self-serving.

You are making a claim about my motivations, and you are basing it on nothing except your prejudices.

It means your arguments for "supporting women" are full of crap.

It is not.

You would not hold it against a gay person to care about things like Lawrence and Obergefell. You would not hold it against a woman of reproductive age to care about abortion and contraception access as political issues. So why hold it against me?

Because you aren't arguing honestly that you want it legal so you can legally do it.

Huh? I am not getting your point here, if there even is one.

 

[Derec]

I’m in a rush so I’ll just address the last:

You tend to do that a lot - ignore most of the points raised against your position.

Providing manicures to the public does not carry with it the same risk to health from transmission disease or from violence as does sex work, even in places where sex work is legal.

- But there is risk of exploitation, as that NY Times article shows.
- There are professions more dangerous than sex work.
- Do you really think health and safety of sex workers are not negatively impacted by keeping the profession illegal?

 

[Derec]

Personally, I don't think it is enough to legalize such work, it needs to be institutionalized.

What does that even mean concretely? Only allow government-run brothels, like the government-run liquor stores in some states?

It needs beaucoup regulation. It needs a 401k. And it needs to help snuff out the illicit trade that will be in its shadow.

Too much regulation does not help snuff out illicit trade, as it becomes difficult to comply with all the onerous regulations.
There should be reasonable regulation, but no more than that.
401k would only apply to sex workers working for an establishment, not independent providers. But with their income being legal, they can invest it using a (Roth) IRA.

 

[Toni]

I’m in a rush so I’ll just address the last:

You tend to do that a lot - ignore most of the points raised against your position.

Providing manicures to the public does not carry with it the same risk to health from transmission disease or from violence as does sex work, even in places where sex work is legal.

- But there is risk of exploitation, as that NY Times article shows.
- There are professions more dangerous than sex work.
- Do you really think health and safety of sex workers are not negatively impacted by keeping the profession illegal?

It’s true: I do not necessarily address every point put to me. Sometimes it’s a question of time. Sometimes I feel like the point has already been rehashed many times and there’s no point to keep repeating the same points in counter to someone else’s.

Or add it to my list of character flaws.

My big qualm about legalization of prostitution hinges exactly on the point of which causes the least harm to the most people? I come down on the side of not legalizing or only very limited legalization because of concerns about underaged sex workers and coercion, which is a genuine issue that does not disappear and at least sometimes increases in some situations.

There are many dangerous occupations. Many/most have a lot of regulation and safety training to reduce risks. I certainly underwent safety training at the beginning and at least annually when I worked in a lab dealing with human blood and body fluids—and the use of personal protective equipment was mandatory—and enforced. I’ve undergone safety training for other jobs as well. I’m not certain that it would translate well into sex work. And frankly we both know that there will always be pressure to forgo condoms, for example.

 

[Emily Lake]

The seller is under duress. But the buyer wouldn't know that. Legalization and regulation could help remediate this concern, but not solve it. Also, what in the fuck does your hobby horse have to do with the targeted murder of Charlie Kirk?

And why are we to assume the seller is under duress?

If she truly is go after the person putting her under duress. That should carry very heavy penalties.

But "want money" is not duress.

You know, if people actually managed to get rid of the people putting them under duress, there'd be like a dozen prostitutes left in the whole country.

It's flat out exploitation by both the pimps and the purchasers, and it's the commodification of a woman's entire body for use as a literal object for sexual gratification.

 

[Emily Lake]

The seller is under duress.

Why do you think that a sex worker is under duress, but the people working in an auto parts factory or a slaughter house aren't? Do you think that the people working at McDonald's are doing it out of love for burgers?

What about people who stay with a partner that they can't stand because they can provide a lifestyle that they are not equipped to provide for themselves? Do you think that Melania Trump stays with Donald because she loves him so much?

Where do you draw the line between sex worker and and wife?
Tom

See the questions a few posts above, and provide your own fucking answers, Tom. And if you think wives are the same as prostitutes, then it's a good thing you're gay, buddy.

 

[Derec]

As I’ve written before, I have no moral objections to any sex two ( or more) adults mutually consent to engage in.

So you say, but if that were true, would you really only use sources that back the prohibitionist agenda?

I realize that legalization of prostitution reduces the risk of violence for some sex workers. That is a tremendous good!

Isn't that alone a pretty good reason for legalization?

Another big reason is that it makes the society more free. Just like keeping gay sex legal makes the society more free even if neither of us wishes to partake. A true liberal should appreciate that.

But legalization does not solve all of the risks of violence or trafficking.

It does not solve everything, but then, nothing does. That is not an argument for prohibition.

It ‘expands the market.’

That might only mean that without fear of government persecution more people (sellers and buyers of sexual services) feel free to do what they wanted to do anyway, but were too afraid to do because of legal consequences.
Just like more gays have sex in the US than in Iran - many gays choose to go celibate because of fear of consequences.
Thus "expanding the market"

Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?

Human trafficking leaves no land untouched. In 2013 the U.S. State Department estimated that there are 27 million victims worldwide trafficked for forced labor or commercial sex exploitation. A 201…

orgs.law.harvard.edu

Note that this is not a Harvard study - an article about it is merely posted there. And the sole comment points out some of the problems with the methodology.

And there is this article about how "trafficking" has become a meaningless term.
"Human Trafficking" Has Become a Meaningless Term

"Trafficking," in practice, is less a clear-cut crime than a call to moral panic. The vagueness of the definition allows or even encourages governments, organizations, and researchers to claim that there are tens of millions of trafficking victims worldwide on the basis of little more than hyperbolic guesses. Politicians use trafficking rhetoric to portray themselves as defenders of the downtrodden, and generate laudatory press coverage, as Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has done with his crusade against Backpage.com and other sites advertising adult services.
[...]
The exact origin of the term "sex trafficking" is unclear, but according to Alison Bass, author of Getting Screwed: Sex Workers and the Law, it seems to have been developed by anti-prostitution feminists in the 1990s. Bass told me that "trafficking" was used especially to describe the migration of women from the collapsing Soviet Union to the United States. Donna Hughes's seminal 2000 article "The Natasha Trade" defined trafficking specifically as "any practice that involves moving people within and across local or national borders for the purpose of sexual exploitation."
But anti-prostitution activists like Hughes often use “sexual exploitation” to include any kind of prostitution or sex work—in fact, Hughes insists in her article that "trafficking occurs even if the woman consents.” In other words, trafficking can include sex workers who decide to illegally or semi-legally migrate from Eastern Europe to the United States. This describes the majority of women who were said to be "trafficked," according to researchers Robert M. Fuffington and Donna J. Guy. "More often than not," they write in A Global History of Sexuality, "these women have engaged in some form of sex work in their home countries and see work abroad as a chance to improve their circumstances."

[emphasis added]

There are obviously pros and cons to legalization of prostitution. For me, the pros do not outweigh the cons.

Reality is that pros strongly outweigh the cons.

 

[Derec]

Look at pot, for example. It’s legal in many states and that has generated new business models and products, including lots of CBD products. In my life, I’ve never been interested at all in smoking anything. But I’ve used some legal CBD products. Because they are legal. The market has expanded.

Yes, making something legal will expand the market vs. keeping it illegal. But why are you treating that as a bad thing? It should be a matter of personal choice in free society.

Ever notice that one coffee shop on a nice corner often leads to another coffee shop? Same thing with fast food and tattoo parlors.
Availability generates demand.

I do not think that one tattoo shop (or coffee shop or burger joint) begetting another necessarily leads to increased demand, but there is certainly clustering of certain businesses that compete with each other. This is a very different phenomenon than increased demand due to a product or service becoming legal, be it pot, gay sex, abortions or sex for money.

Do we think that making pot legal has increased or decreased demand for pot? Has it had an impact on illegal drugs? Would legalizing drugs reduce demand or increase it? Reduce the negative consequences of drug use? Sure, it would reduce arrests for buying/selling/possession. I applauded d that! But there are plenty of other negative effects.

Which can be mitigated through regulation. I do think legalizing weed is the right thing to do as pros outweigh cons. Same for sex work.

Legalization would do nothing to reduce the demand for underaged sex workers.

It would not, but neither would it do anything to increase it. So that is not a sound argument for prohibition. What can happen is that law enforcement, no longer busy persecuting consenting adults using stings and whatnot, can focus on forced and underage aspects of the trade. That is a good thing.

It would not reduce the demand for what could still remain illegal. It would not guarantee that sex workers are willing participants but it would make it easier to claim that they were.

... but it would make it easier to distinguish one from the other.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor.

Bullshit. This view is infantilizing adult women, saying that they have as little agency over their bodies as children.

Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.

Again, bullshit. If two people mutually agree to exchange sexual services for money, how is that "exploitation and commodification" any more than any other service profession? And just because one hires a hooker does not mean he does not care about her welfare.

And lastly, there are also women who hire sex workers, as well as male sex workers.

Yikes. I almost agree with Derec. Can't believe I'm writing that. I believe that IF the woman is in her right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND she chooses to sell her services on HER terms, then I see no moral issue. It should be legal. That is a lot of qualifiers, but that is my thoughts.

IF a man is in his right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND he chooses to sell his services as a slave on HIS terms, then I see no moral issue; it should be legal.

Even with all of those qualifiers, would you agree with that statement?

 

[Toni]

As I’ve written before, I have no moral objections to any sex two ( or more) adults mutually consent to engage in.

So you say, but if that were true, would you really only use sources that back the prohibitionist agenda?

I realize that legalization of prostitution reduces the risk of violence for some sex workers. That is a tremendous good!

Isn't that alone a pretty good reason for legalization?

Another big reason is that it makes the society more free. Just like keeping gay sex legal makes the society more free even if neither of us wishes to partake. A true liberal should appreciate that.

But legalization does not solve all of the risks of violence or trafficking.

It does not solve everything, but then, nothing does. That is not an argument for prohibition.

It ‘expands the market.’

That might only mean that without fear of government persecution more people (sellers and buyers of sexual services) feel free to do what they wanted to do anyway, but were too afraid to do because of legal consequences.
Just like more gays have sex in the US than in Iran - many gays choose to go celibate because of fear of consequences.
Thus "expanding the market"

Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?

Human trafficking leaves no land untouched. In 2013 the U.S. State Department estimated that there are 27 million victims worldwide trafficked for forced labor or commercial sex exploitation. A 201…

orgs.law.harvard.edu

Note that this is not a Harvard study - an article about it is merely posted there. And the sole comment points out some of the problems with the methodology.

And there is this article about how "trafficking" has become a meaningless term.
"Human Trafficking" Has Become a Meaningless Term

"Trafficking," in practice, is less a clear-cut crime than a call to moral panic. The vagueness of the definition allows or even encourages governments, organizations, and researchers to claim that there are tens of millions of trafficking victims worldwide on the basis of little more than hyperbolic guesses. Politicians use trafficking rhetoric to portray themselves as defenders of the downtrodden, and generate laudatory press coverage, as Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has done with his crusade against Backpage.com and other sites advertising adult services.
[...]
The exact origin of the term "sex trafficking" is unclear, but according to Alison Bass, author of Getting Screwed: Sex Workers and the Law, it seems to have been developed by anti-prostitution feminists in the 1990s. Bass told me that "trafficking" was used especially to describe the migration of women from the collapsing Soviet Union to the United States. Donna Hughes's seminal 2000 article "The Natasha Trade" defined trafficking specifically as "any practice that involves moving people within and across local or national borders for the purpose of sexual exploitation."
But anti-prostitution activists like Hughes often use “sexual exploitation” to include any kind of prostitution or sex work—in fact, Hughes insists in her article that "trafficking occurs even if the woman consents.” In other words, trafficking can include sex workers who decide to illegally or semi-legally migrate from Eastern Europe to the United States. This describes the majority of women who were said to be "trafficked," according to researchers Robert M. Fuffington and Donna J. Guy. "More often than not," they write in A Global History of Sexuality, "these women have engaged in some form of sex work in their home countries and see work abroad as a chance to improve their circumstances."

[emphasis added]

There are obviously pros and cons to legalization of prostitution. For me, the pros do not outweigh the cons.

Reality is that pros strongly outweigh the cons.

I don’t only read about the cons of legalization.

I think we must weigh the good of possibly making sex work safer for some sex workers against the potential for greater harm done to those who are coerced into meeting the increased demand. I am not as sanguine that pros outweigh the cons. I wish I were.

I know that in many places in the MidEast homosexuality is illegal. I also know that it still happens. Just as it still happened in other parts of the world when it was illegal.

Lots of women—and men come to the US to work and many of them find that the jobs they were coming to work do not exist and many are pressed into sex work. They are told they have to ‘work off their debt’ incurred in transporting them to the US. So yeah, that qualifies as trafficking.

 

[Emily Lake]

You buy your weed from the dispensary I passed today, you get carded. You buy it from the illegal dealer, you don't.

You buy your legal murderer from the broker down the street, it's recorded and taxed and you know you're going to get a high-quality murder with no risk of collateral damage. You buy it from a back-alley assassin squad and you just never know how many innocent bystanders are going to get taken out in the fray.

I'm not so sure that making things legal and regulated can be extrapolated to all situations. So maybe there's some reasonable limit where most prudent people would agree?

That line... yeah, I think using women's bodies as commodities to be traded for sexual gratification is on the wrong side of that line.

 

[Emily Lake]

More derails. Sex and gender discussions do not belong here.

I just got there.

Any chance you might consider moving my prostitution-related posts to the other thread?

 

[Bronzeage]

I've never seen Sophie's performance on Onlyfans, but I can imagine most of it. Her cost of production is quite low, compared to Taylor. She certainly isn't spending a lot on wardrobe.

Me neither, so I cannot judge how elaborate her performances are, or what the production values are.

I confess to being baffled by the economics of pornography. I'm sitting at a computer that gives me free access to almost any sexual display for no cost. I really don't understand how anyone manages to sell something when most of the competition is giving away the same product, and besides that, anyone with access to it, can reproduce it at no cost.

I am not an OF connoisseur myself either, but my understanding is that for most OF subscribers, there is some form of interactivity, even getting custom videos for additional $$$.

As with all commerce of this type, GFE is a premium product.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The same way that one coffee shop spawns another. Or one porn shop or pawn shop or tattoo parlor seems to spawn another.

If people know that three blocks east of Main is where to go for for sex or booze or ice cream, they go three blocks east of Main for sex or booze or ice cream. So other establishments selling the same product or services begin to open nearby to take care of overflow.

Don’t you live in Nevada? Why did one casino attract others?

I see no such spawning.

Our casinos follow two patterns:

1) Clumped along the Strip. Those casinos are targeted towards tourists, they're trying to pull tourists away from the competition and thus are close.

2) Dispersed across the city. They are about attracting locals, they stay away from each other because competition is bad for them. There used to be two adjacent ones not on the strip, but both were on what used to be the normal approach from the northwest. A freeway has gone in changing the traffic patterns, one of them is now gone.

Tourist businesses cluster, other businesses generally do not. I can only think of one intersection in town with any realistic competition between businesses--there's one intersection with a Target and a WalMart. At one point it had a KMart but it died with KMart and the whole complex died with it, there's drive-through fast food but everything else is derelict. Nobody wants to move in next to that kind of competition. (And it's also made worse by being adjacent to an expensive part of town, there's not enough to attract the higher end shops, but definitely fewer customers for the middle class stores.)

Note what you said about "overflow". That implies more demand than one business can address. It's not businesses attracting like, it's the market demand is there for multiple providers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is just as apt to describe husbands as prostitutes.

In cases where a (less desirable, perhaps older) woman marries a boy toy, sure. But it's not as common as the reverse.

Exactly. Few women are interested in a boy toy. Male prostitutes always take male clients because one that only took female clients wouldn't be able to stay in business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would presume being an OnlyFans content creator would be considered sex work, no? I can't imagine this young lady would consider her job to be done "under duress":

OnlyFans’ Sophie Rain Says She ‘Almost Earned More Than’ LeBron James in 2024, Reveals Salary

OnlyFans creator Sophie Rain is pulling back the curtain on her finances and revealing how much she earns as an adult content creator.

“I almost made more than LeBron [James] last year,” Rain, 20, claimed in David Dobrik’s Tuesday, August 26, YouTube vlog. “He made 56 million [and] I made 43.”

She is an exception regarding the salary, but there are a lot of everyday women doing this sort of thing to earn a few extra dollars, and even end up dropping out of their current career to do it full time. They like it and do it of their own free will, and no pimp to take their money or bully them. I do wonder about the men who pay for this though. What a bunch of dopes.

Yeah. I do not like OnlyFans, but that's because I see the fundamental business model to be deceiving the customers. But over on Reddit you'll find some exhibitionist types who do it for the thrill, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some like that on OnlyFans.

 

[Toni]

The same way that one coffee shop spawns another. Or one porn shop or pawn shop or tattoo parlor seems to spawn another.

If people know that three blocks east of Main is where to go for for sex or booze or ice cream, they go three blocks east of Main for sex or booze or ice cream. So other establishments selling the same product or services begin to open nearby to take care of overflow.

Don’t you live in Nevada? Why did one casino attract others?

I see no such spawning.

Our casinos follow two patterns:

1) Clumped along the Strip. Those casinos are targeted towards tourists, they're trying to pull tourists away from the competition and thus are close.

2) Dispersed across the city. They are about attracting locals, they stay away from each other because competition is bad for them. There used to be two adjacent ones not on the strip, but both were on what used to be the normal approach from the northwest. A freeway has gone in changing the traffic patterns, one of them is now gone.

Tourist businesses cluster, other businesses generally do not. I can only think of one intersection in town with any realistic competition between businesses--there's one intersection with a Target and a WalMart. At one point it had a KMart but it died with KMart and the whole complex died with it, there's drive-through fast food but everything else is derelict. Nobody wants to move in next to that kind of competition. (And it's also made worse by being adjacent to an expensive part of town, there's not enough to attract the higher end shops, but definitely fewer customers for the middle class stores.)

Note what you said about "overflow". That implies more demand than one business can address. It's not businesses attracting like, it's the market demand is there for multiple providers.

Businesses DO create demand. No one needs a coffee from Starbucks but the presence of a Starbucks does predict another Starbucks. From what I’ve been told, it is impossible to go into any commercial place in Nevada without encountering slot machines.

In Nevada, where prostitution is legal in six counties, the vast overwhelming amount of prostitution is illegal and occurs in Las Vegas and Reno. I’d bet money that’s where most illegal drug trade occurs as well. Sure, that’s also where the bulk of the population lives and where the majority of visitors go. In people’s minds, Las Vegas is where you go to gamble and party and maybe see a show. For lots of those visitors, party includes sex workers.

The fact is that legalizing prostitution sends a message to men and boys that women ( and too often, children) are available for sex—for a fee.