Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,975
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
No, really. I only want to ensure, as much as possible, that kids are kept as safe as possible, and at least from exploitation by adults.Those are restrictions put in place by private companies, not government. What you want is raise the legal "age of consent" to 25 as long as cash (or facsimile/equivalent) is being exchanged.The reason I suggested 25 is because that is an age which is often the cutoff age for people to re t some types of property, such as vacation re take.
I disagree with these limits too, but again, they are imposed by private companies, not governments.Because under 25, there is a much higher risk of renters engaging in dangerous and property damaging behavior. Some never out grow this, true. But I understand WHY huge age limit exists, legally.
Legalizing would certainly make it safer. Pushing it into the underground, even more so with boneheaded laws like FOSTA/SESTA, makes sex work more dangerous.Under all circumstances, prostitution is a potentially dangerous, even life threatening line of work.
That said, there are plenty of "potentially dangerous" jobs out there. Would you prohibit young adults from doing any of these:
You also cannot guarantee that a passenger a taxi/Uber driver picks up is not dangerous. Or a person somebody delivers a pizza to. Or any job involving client interaction. But keeping yourself safe is easier when government is not pushing your industry underground. It was safer to solicit custom on Backpage than on street corners. But the federal government shut it down (in a bipartisan fashion I might add) for no good reason.Not to suggest all clients are dangerous. But it is not possible to discern which will and which will not be, or who does/does not have an incurable STI. Or who will/will not be compliant with condom use.
But now you want to punish clients because a 23 year old adult sex worker looked 25.Another reason is that if everyone knows that someone must be at least 25, it will give them far less cover to claim that 14-15 year old looks 18….
That would greatly limit US armed forces recruitment numbers.Before you ask: I also think that one should have to be at least 25 to enlist in the armed services.
But would you also limit employment in other "potentially dangerous" professions? Not only the ones in the graphic above, but most jobs are "potentially dangerous". Even working at McD, you can run into a nut job getting violent over their Big Mac order ...
In my former job in a lab, part of the testing we did included testing for HIV and for syphilis. So, I was potentially exposed every day (as well as to some other infections, some of which can be sexually transmitted). YET my employer provided and indeed insisted upon the correct and universal use of personal protective equipment and procedures to ensure the risk was minimized.
And here's the important part: Anyone who touched another person in any way, shape or form that could be construed as sexual would have been fired immediately. NO ONE had the right to touch me or speak to me or anyone else in a manner that would
True? I thought they were heavily regulated, registered, inspected etc.Legalized brothels/districts often attract not legal sex workers who are in fact under age and coerced.
How do you “know” that, anyway?
I’m not contradicting you, I really was told those things.
That aside though, the rest of the issues you mention ARE vastly problematic.
I’ve read extensively about legalized brotgel districts in Europe and the illegal sex trade that accompanies the legal work.
It makes sense—for some people, what attracts them is specifically the illegal aspects. And of course there are those who are actual pedophiles which is a separate issue altogether.
Some people are attracted to newer, different drugs, or drugs taken in different t ways that give a bigger thrill or high or whatever. It’s not that different than sex work. Except for who the victims are.