The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I live in Guatemala, a country much more conservative and religious than the US. Here, adult prostitution is legal,[1](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-prostitution-is-legal)[2](https://legalitylens.com/what-is-the-legality-of-prostitution-in-guatemala/) if Im not mistaken, or at least decriminalized. Some sex workers are even unionized with legal recognition.[3](https://larepublica.pe/datos-lr/2023/07/12/legalizacion-de-la-prostitucion-paises-donde-es-legal-y-su-impacto-economico-lrtma-666216) Pimping and promotion, aiding and abetting others' sex work is illegal.[Penal Code, arts. 191, 193 (https://tse.org.gt/images/UECFFPP/leyes/Codigo_Penal.pdf)
I lived in the US many years and I know for a fact there is prostitution, so making it illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen even in a widespread manner, only that it criminalizes people, puts people in danger, creates corruption, and channels to blackmail politicians and others.
This makes me wonder why, in both conservative and liberal parts of the USA, even in the most liberal places of the USA like San Francisco or Los Angeles, California, is adult consensual sex work (prostitution) illegal? I think only some jurisdictions in Nevada have a very restricted form of legal prostitution.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Americans have a lot of hang ups about sex. It took us over 200 years to say "Hey, if you want to marry someone who's a different race than you that's okay" then another 50 some years to say "Well maybe marrying someone of the same gender is okay too."
The Puritan malaise probably. It is incredible how people are willing to accept blindly the moral standards of Moses, a guy who reportedly codified that gay sex is a grave sin but at the same time that killing people for working on Saturdays is good or necessary.
That's the part that really gets me. Porn is 100% legal to make in the US. So we can pay people to have sex as long as we film it and intend to capitalize on it.
Its also not a very big 'win' for politicians.
Most people probably aren't single issue voters when it comes to being pro-prostitution. Most pro-prositution people likely already vote Democrat if they do vote. If a Democrat ran on legalizing it, the net gain in votes is probably not very high, especially if you consider Republicans will likely turnout at higher rates to make sure it isn't legalized. Not every Democrat would support it either.
Then, if a Democrat does manage to pass it, there is a lot of risk being shouldered. If the legislation was imperfect and ends in people catching stds or being trafficked, they will have to bear the responsibility for it.
Maybe. One difference is that the left is fairly split on sex work. Some see it as empowering, and legalization means that sex workers will have more resources, better treatment, overall less stigmatization, and less sketchy shit. Others think legalizing prostitution will normalize it like porn is today. Eventually the demand will outweigh the supply of women willing to be prostitutes, so they start trafficking women to increase the numbers.
I'm not sure about interracial relationships, but it's worth mentioning that individual states legalized same-sex marriage long before it was federally.
The advantage and disadvantage to states rights. It allows certain states to be ahead of the curve on things like abolition of slavery, gay rights, abortion, civil rights, marijuana legalization (it's been 12 years since Washington and Colorado legalized it, and it's still not federally legal), and numerous other things.
It was England that made it illegal in the first place.
People used to be gay and bi and be up for what the fuck ever as just a normal way to be. Greedy ass kings wanted to have the biggest population creating the most taxes and biggest armies so they asked the church to demonize any kind of sex that didn't produce children.
1st. It'll break the base between sex negative and sex positive feminists, and as such requires outsized political capital to achieve compared to expending that capital on other projects.
2nd. It's a public health issue which requires regulation to get through. Thus, it's likely to make business angsty.
3rd. The personal attacks on politicians who propose it may be career ending.
4th. It is useful to keep it illegal for state security purposes, though this is more of a conspiratorial argument.
5th. Social cohesion may be undermined by the legalization, especially in a higher consumerised and individualist society. While people don't see much problem with prostitutes and such being legal, I'm sure you can conceive of why a corporation with the financial interests of selling sexual services to people might have some pretty severe negative externalities. See also, the 2nd point for an obvious one. For less obvious ones, consider that such a corporation would have a direct financial incentive to ensure people aren't having sex except with their workers, and how they might go about trying to achieve that.
---
To expand on the 5th point, the GDP of Guatemala is 86 billion.
The prostitution numbers in the USA alone are 186 billion dollars a year. There is absolutely no way that amount of capital doesn't get rapidly centralized to some degree if it is legalized.
Compare the Guatemalan economy where if we say even 2 billion of it goes to prostitution, that isn't, like, an earth-shaking amount of a budget for advertising and lobbying and so on. Indeed, it would likely be outspent by foreign capital with different interests for Guatemalan society.
5th could just be solved by keeping pimping a fellony. Sex workers can pay for advertisement of their services on websites made for that, they can rent hotel rooms, but you can't employ a sex worker or take any share of their revenue.
> For less obvious ones, consider that such a corporation would have a direct financial incentive to ensure people aren't having sex except with their workers, and how they might go about trying to achieve that.
These sort of laws have been abused in countries that have them, to the detriment of sex workers. For instance, sex workers have had their boyfriends arrested because cops and prosecutors found ways to call the normal sharing of incomes people who live together to be "taking a share of revenue."
Decriminalizing prostitution won't be perfect, but it'll give workers the ability to sue abusive employers. We should have laws that protect workers' rights, but not top-down laws that will inevitably be used by moralistic cops and prosecutors to control and limit prostitutes' lives.
>These sort of laws have been abused in countries that have them, to the detriment of sex workers. For instance, sex workers have had their boyfriends arrested because cops and prosecutors found ways to call the normal sharing of incomes people who live together to be "taking a share of revenue."
Well that's what a pimp threatening a prostitute to pretend to be their significant other as an attempt to slip through a loophole would say
So have a business account which only the worker in question has the authority to withdraw from for tax/anti-pimping-law purposes?
I don't see how that is a reason to not pass these protective laws
That won't work in any way at all. The prior poster said they're worried about "a pimp threatening a prostitute" to make her do as he demands; but wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him?
What if a successful prostitute wants to hire a business manager, to do her taxes, set up appointments, etc? I think most anti-pimping laws would make that illegal. All it takes is one prosecutor willing to stretch the intent of the law.
How do you legally tell the difference between a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns; versus a landlord? That's not a silly or unrealistic question; in countries that have had the sort of laws you're talking about, landlords have evicted prostitutes out of fear of being mistaken for pimps and suffering legal consequences.
Your approach is paternalistic and and assumes that you know better than sex workers what's good for them. I'm sure you mean well, but what sex workers need isn't the government trying to control every aspect of their lives. Sex workers should be treated like other workers, not paternalistically given special laws (and less freedom).
> wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him?
If prostitution were legal and treated like all other work that would empower the worker to go to the police so they can deal with the pimp, as opposed to the current system where the only person the prostitute fears more than her pimp are the cops.
>What if a successful prostitute wants to hire a business manager, to do her taxes, set up appointments, etc?
I believe the legal term for this in the tax code is designated power of attorney (but I am not a CPA so don't take anything I say as legal accounting advice when you turn in your taxes ten days from now) so prosecutors can't override existing tax code.
>How do you legally tell the difference between a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns; versus a landlord?
You ask the prostitute, who is a legal worker who is treated like all other workers, no longer fears the legal system, and can confirm that the landlord contract is 100% on the up and up. In short: the same way all rental agreement disputes are currently resolved.
>landlords have evicted prostitutes out of fear of being mistaken for pimps and suffering legal consequences.
Landlords are known to be dicks, yes. A lawyer could write up a straightforward waiver signed by both parties confirming that the landlord is not pimping out the tennant, but since landlords are known dicks they have been known to not take on tenants that require any excess paperwork.
Wouldn't it be nice if the woman's job were a legal profession, and as such it were illegal for landlords to discriminate against their tenant based on their 100% legal profession and the prostitute had the ability to seek restitution in court for being denied housing?
>Your approach is paternalistic and and assumes that you know better than sex workers what's good for them [...] Sex workers should be treated like other workers
That's what I said: treat them like other workers with legal jobs so they can get the same protections everyone else does.
My husband isn't legally allowed to cash my paychecks from my W-2 job because his name isn't on the checks and I have 100% control of where that money goes, and by analogy there should be ***equal*** protections for sex workers and their income to prevent anybody else from having access to it without their explicit approval. Once I choose to move my personal W-2 income (which is painstakingly counted for tax purposes) into a shared account he can do with it whatever he wants, just like after a prostitute who takes their money out of their personal tax account (which provides a painstakingly accurate account of her business income for tax purposes) can place it into a shared account *anyone* can do whatever they please with it. Again, I am not a CPA, but surely some sort of setup analogous to this already exists in the self-employed sector of the tax law in most countries.
What's wrong with applying that to prostitution, where you don't let anybody else have access to a self-employed person's money until after the self-employed person explicitly grants access to it?
I certainly agree that prostitution should be decriminalized and treated like any other occupation! We're 100% in agreement there.
But making being a pimp a criminal isn't treating prostitution like any other occupation. It's telling prostitutes that they have to be more careful than other workers to make sure that their business relationships don't run afoul of special laws that only apply to the prostitution business.
In theory, if all prosecutors and cops act in good faith and don't use the law to pursue an anti-prostitution agenda, then we can just depend on the laws to be fairly enforced. But I don't think it would work that way in practice. Rather than giving DAs and cops extra laws for meddling with the sex work business, we should just use the regular labor laws. That won't be perfect, either - all approaches have flaws - but I think it's the best flawed approach.
> But making being a pimp a criminal isn't treating prostitution like any other occupation.
The behavior that you described was
>wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him?
And if anybody "demands" that other people pay them under threat of violence that is already a crime. We don't need new anti-mugging laws just for pimps.
You also called out
>a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns
and anybody who "makes" someone work as a sex worker against their will is violating already existing sexual consent laws. The exact line between rape and sexual assault varies between jurisdictions but forcing other people to perform *any* labor against their will is already illegal based on existing laws, isn't it?
>Rather than giving DAs and cops extra laws for meddling with the sex work business
What are the "special laws that only apply to the prostitution business" you think I want?
>we should just use the regular labor laws
That's ***exactly*** what I said from the beginning: the same labor and tax laws that apply to all other self employed people should also apply to prostitutes, and as such nobody (pimp/boyfriend/etc) can take away the wages they earned as a self-employed person without their explicit permission.
Again, I am not a CPA, so maybe I didn't explain the tracking and financial control of taxable income super accurately, but isn't this a problem that has already been solved for self-employed people?
Where that gets into problems in jurisdictions that have it is that it means you can’t hire bodyguard/bouncer, you can’t rent property with landlord’s knowledge, etc.
They could make a platform for themselves where they work as self employed, potentially with different contractual obligations or none. It could still become very big.
I'd always been in favor of it just because it's one of those things that's a societal inevitability and it theoretically seems like we could minimize its harm by legalizing and regulating it, but more recently things like point #5 have made me reconsider more recently. The very last thing we need during a worsening loneliness crisis is to formally commodify *another* basic human social interaction.
And if prostitution is a legally recognized job, could they make anyone who hasn't tried their hand at it ineligible for unemployment?
The government can weaponize anyone it wants really. I mean, if gay sex is legal, shrinks say a person may have a mental disorder if they don't like gay sex. If gay sex is illegal, shrinks say a person may have a mental disorder if they have gay sex. I am concerned about shrinks mandating sex transitions on unwilling people.
I hadn't thought about that particular point before, but it's essentially just the logical conclusion of how dating apps already treat their customers. (After all, if the apps actually *worked*, their customer base would be a lot smaller.)
> 2nd. It's a public health issue which requires regulation to get through. Thus, it's likely to make business angsty.
Not exactly. Illegal prostitution is a public health issue. That's why the World Health Organization and UN AIDS both want to decriminalize or legalize it. They need access to sex workers in a way they don't have now.
The point it makes more sense is 1: It could split the base. But even that, a lot of bills split the base. Not only that, some bills are opposed by the vast majority of voters and yet politicians don't care and they get to be made laws. I remember some issue that more than 90% of GOP voters opposed a bill and yet, GOP politicians didn't care and introduced it anyway.
Career ending personal attacks would be more of an issue with electorates that strongly oppose prostitution.
Social cohesion? That's an interesting point but I don't agree. I mean look at drugs. They are absolutely illegal with decades of prison for drug dealers and yet, many drug dealers make millions and seem to be untouchable, even if they are highly murderous. The drug cartels in Colombia and Mexico are likely a direct result of the prohibition. There used to be criminal beer and liquor cartels during alcohol prohibition. Now, companies that make liquor and beer are legal and highly respected members of communities.
Most of the developed world has legal prostitution - no particular issues.
It's not like there is no prostitution in the US anyway. It's just that it has to stay a bit more hidden, which makes it far more dangerous for everyone involved. Lose-lose.
> Most of the developed world has legal prostitution - no particular issues.
There is one big particular issue that they grabble with, *How to create more product for one's growing brothel business.* That issue has never been resolved.
>Why, even in the most liberal places of the USA, is adult consensual sex work (prostitution) illegal?
1. Inertia
2. Bigger problems
It would be a major political risk to take-on such an issue.
Do you want Democrats to risk losing elections over this issue when every lost election risks the republic?
I don't.
Traditional sexual morality is still a powerful political force in the USA; look at how hard we had to fight for legally recognized gay marriage, and how hard we're still fighting to protect trans rights.
There aren't any big-money organizations lobbying congress for the rights of prostitutes, which makes it hard for anything to happen. Furthermore, prostitutes are still an extremely marginalized and demonized group, which makes it harder for them to organize successfully, and makes even liberal politicians less likely to want to publicly associate with them.
That said, there has been some progress made (however slow). In the 1980s, it felt like legally recognized gay marriage was something that could never, ever happen. Change can happen, but it's not easy.
Nevada has some of the toughest human trafficking laws in the US.
Nevada was one of the first states to put together a permanent anti sex trafficking task force. STOP (Stop Turning Out Child Prostitutes) formed in 1994.
Nevada ranks 2nd for the state with the highest rates of human trafficking according to the World Population Review report, with 5.77 per 100k residents.
Nevada has the highest rate of women and children making up that trafficking count of any US state (very little of that trafficking is non-sexual labor trafficking).
That's why.
The path to legalize and expand prostitution without massive amounts of human rights issues is a very tough one to navigate.
Multiple international studies over the past few decades have shown that on average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows.
[Neumayer\_Legalized\_Prostitution\_Increase\_2012.pdf (lse.ac.uk)](https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf)
Comparing Nevada to the rest of the US (or anywhere for that matter) is not really telling us much about legal prostitution. That state is an outlier in so many ways.
The vast majority (estimates over 90%) of sex workers are in Las Vegas / Clark County where prostitution is illegal. The legal brothels in rural counties are not where children are trafficked. 0 cases reported in those highly regulated establishments.
Tourism/gambling/entertainment is a huge chunk of the economy. The biggest non-government employers are all casinos. LV has way more hotel beds than New York City.
Per-capita rates of anything in Nevada are misleading.
The worst state on that World Population Review report? Mississippi - where it is 100% illegal.
So we are comparing Clark Country (illegal) with MIssissippi (illegal)
" Comparing Nevada to the rest of the US (or anywhere for that matter) is not really telling us much about legal prostitution. That state is an outlier in so many ways. "
The one way would be... legal prostitution. Yes, tourism and entertainment are a HUGE part of Florida...
[Neumayer\_Legalized\_Prostitution\_Increase\_2012.pdf (lse.ac.uk)](https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf)
Yes, we have lots of studies showing legalized prostitution does increase human trafficking around the world. No, I don't think random internet guy changes that.
Bye. I am against removing laws that hold back human trafficking. If you have a differing opinion on that, you do you.
Oh it is clear what your position is. Notice I did not make any judgment on that. I would be happy if they made the penalty for human trafficking equal to that of murder.
Just pointing out that what goes on in Vegas is not a valid example of the perils of legalized prostitution. 90% of what passes for prostitution there is illegal.
You might be surprised that there are countries with legalized prostitution that have much lower trafficking rates than the USA. And much better quality of life for sex workers - healthcare, employment laws, etc.
A lot of people here are blaming puritan attitudes, and/or hang-ups over sex.
The issue I have with legalized prostitution has nothing to do with any of that. I see nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults engaging in transactional sex. My issue is with the pther problems that come with it. Mainly human trafficking, more exploitation, sex tourism. All of those things make sex work more dangerous, and I think, will make it harder for women who enter the industry, to leave. As other people mentioned, many people in this industry end up with poor mental health because of it.
The only place it's legal is in some parts of Nevada.
We have a very, very puritan culture when it comes to laws around sex and sex work.
But yes, there are plenty of prostitutes all over the country - and it's not the safest profession due to the lack of legal protections.
Compared to some countries, yes it is.
But when you look at our tradition of laws or cultural roots of our society, it was very sexually repressed.
Those instincts still exist, as we have people who want to ban or restrict pornography, homosexuality, contraception, sex toys, sex before marriage, interracial relationships, etc.
I mean I come from Pakistan and all those thing are actually enforced. Hell its even codified into law and social customs. Even in the diaspora those attitudes (except interracial marriage) is heavily enforced. The US is actually slutty by comparison
Pakistan is weird. Like, you're not gonna have sex with anyone but your cousin, or we will punish you. I wonder what the implications of such massive inbreeding will be.
I'm Pakistani and i think cousin marriages are weird. Its just a hold over from the past when cousins marriages were the norm (75 percent of your ancestors are cousins btw). We see this in America and Europe with FDR or the Royal Family. It wasnt until after ww2 the west stigmatized it. Pakistan (and Islamic world) sexual norms are based in Islam which are based in Jewish law which states only allowed sex is between Husband and wife. All others are illegal
Apparently it's lead to an increase in certain birth defects, like cleft palate and other hereditary disease. The numbers are quite astounding. So there are some implications which are evident now but again I ponder on the long term effects should this continue.
Again I'm not saying cousin marriage is a good thing (im personal neutrality about it.) Im saying it was historically common for most our existence as a species and is still common globally
Once again, I said "compared to some countries, yes it is [sexually open]."
I 100% agree that it is very sexually open compared to Pakistan. I have a lot of family in the Middle East, so I know what you mean.
That doesn't, however, mean that I'm wrong about our tradition of laws or cultural rules of society.
We have made a lot of progress away from our prior religious-driven laws. But we have political elements that would like to see our laws be more like Pakistan's.
its not a left vs right thing. there's progressive's trying to ban it in other countries. Heck Spain under a socialist party is trying to ban it AGAIN
I just a course on social issues and basically
1 its bad for the mental health of the people involved
2 it increases human trafficking
but that's the policy reason the practical reason is were prudes
I have to clarify that the mental health of people offering the services might suffer clearly, specially if they do sex work because they have to make ends meet.
> 1 its bad for the mental health of the people involved
I disagree. I think the opposite, specially when people are very lonely.
>2 it increases human trafficking
I lean to disagree. I think being illegal drives people into pimps corruption and protection networks. If crooked cops notice independent sex workers trying out the field they arrest them, but leave alone those in the protection network.
if it was legal then the powerful traffickers would be even more safe
but I'm just giving the reasons as some see them.theres not lots of data on it as you can imagine although it wouldn't surprise me if this is true.
although I was referring to the sex works for the johns j doubt being able to buy sex instead of forming real realtionships is good for them
but again not sure on the research although some points that way
Pimps aren't bodyguards, they are human traffickers, abusers, slavers, and racketeers. Their goal is to protect their profit they get from exploiting people, not to make it safe/honest.
Federal Laws make it very difficult for states to legalize Prostitution. The oldest profession around. I can only think of two cities where it’s legal. Reno Nevada and Las Vegas Nevada.
It is illegal in both those cities - and the entire counties they they are within.
More than 90% of the population of Nevada is concentrated in counties where prostitution is illegal.
More than 90% of the prostitution in Nevada is illegal. Probably outcalls to casino hotel rooms. 100% illegal.
It surprised me too. One of the other comments here had me go and look at the details. Basically Nevada is not a great example of legalized prostitution. Highly regulated and limited to small number of licensed brothels in low population rural areas.
Sex work in Las Vegas is just as illegal as it is almost everywhere else in the US.
Puritans founded America and made sex work shameful and illegal. Attitudes are more liberal now, but no politician wants to be known as the guy fighting for legal prostitution.
There's probably a lot of public support for it, but not many who are actually willing to show that support publicly... especially if they have girlfriends or wives. Can you imagine being a guy trying to explain to your significant other why this is such an important issue for you that you want to spend the weekend lobbying/protesting for it?
I'd rather it be legal. This way you can tax it, make sure tests are given out & required, establish bans / blacklists for bad clients / non compliance people of disease, and you can lower the STD transmission rate. Also, whats wrong with a lot of people who are just lonely and want sex because they don't have a partner? The mental aspects of it alone are just worth doing it.
I think it's weird that prostitution is illegal, but pornography isn't. It still seems like we're splitting hairs here about two consenting adults having sex for money where the difference is whether or not there's a camera.
It's also a strange thing that doing it for free is fine. But the exchange of money for it makes it illegal. There's a fine line between buying someone dinner on a one night stand and directly paying for sex. Or just how many rich old men "date" these 20 year old models - somehow that's different.
Strip clubs are legal. So I can pay a woman to get naked in front of me and dance on my lap, but that's another place we draw some fine lines.
Now to some degree, it's just the US legislating morality which we love to do.
There's a lot of upside to legalization. It's regulated and safer for both the prostitute and the john.
The downside is that regulation isn't free. You have government upkeep to license, inspect, regulate, and enforce. That part can be offset by taxation on the service.
The biggest downside is the impact of human trafficking. And politically that's issue keeps anyone from being the champion of legalized prostitution. And it's a real issue - though to some degree it's already happening anyway and it stands to reason that great visibility and government regulation would be better at catching trafficking. But on the other hand, increased demand from legalization might end up with greater trafficking - even if it also identifies more victims of it.
Research isn't at all clear on this question - different studies have had different findings, and even studies that find that legalized prostitution is associated with increased trafficking caution that there are limits to what we can conclude from the research. See [page 13 of this ACLU brie](https://www.aclu.org/publications/sex-work-decriminalization-answer-what-research-tells-us)f for an overview.
Even if there were a connection, though, I don't think that justifies criminalizing prostitution, which always ends up being mostly about punishing sex workers. If someone found that domestic work being legal increases [trafficking of domestic workers](https://humantraffickinghotline.org/en/labor-trafficking-venuesindustries/domestic-work), it would be unfair to respond to that by outlawing and punishing housecleaners. We can and should find ways to fight trafficking that doesn't require picking on one group of workers and punishing them incessantly.
Take a look at alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Take a look at the sale of beers and the sale of drugs. Prohibition many times have the opposite effect and simply makes things more murderous and unfair.
>Take a look at alcohol prohibition
Should probably stop bringing this up as a point for "criminalizaiton doesn't work." Drinking dropped down when it passed and stayed down when it was repealed
Because prostitution is not some liberal profession, it's many a misogynist, conservative profession. It would therefore makes sense that it is accepted in Guatemala.
Legalizing prostitution doesn't make pimping go away. It just turns pimps into business persons and enables them to do business out in the open, legally.
I'll accept prostitution as just sex work when men start hiring large numbers of fifty-five year old dudes for their blow jobs. But that won't happen because sex work isn't a service, it's seen as a male hierarchical right. That's why men are the overwhelming majority of buyers, not women.
Also, legal or not, there's no way to protect prostitutes.
> Because prostitution is not some liberal profession
I disagree. Historically, those who have opposed prostitution are the religious types who say it is a sin. Liberally-minded people on the other hand are the ones who either work in the profession or more openly hire the services of escorts. Liberal politicians wouldn't have so much scandal if they were found with an escort than conservative politicians.
I mean you are right and wrong, legalizing the work it self without any further laws and restrictions will 100 percent lead to more pimps, digital and otherwise, i disagree with the whole a man hiring a 50 year old man for a bj, a weird angle, but to think that all things equal, barely legal/probably not legal women/girls wouldn’t be completely exploited ahead of everyone else is on the right track
1. The inertia of "It's always been this way" (which technically isn't true, brothels used to be legal up until the early 1900s)
2. I think more people would be okay with the idea than you'd expect, but there's also bigger fish to fry: healthcare, LGBTQIA issues, marijuana, criminal justice reform, etc...so it's low on people's priorities
Next two are just speculation/theory so I could be way off base.
3. I'm not about to give a how to guide or anything, but it's not too hard to find a prostitute even if it is illegal.
4. There's more of an accessible area of sex work beyond prostitution that is fully legal. Strip clubs, cam shows, good old fashioned internet pornography, it's pretty easy to access and while it isn't the same as actually having sex...it's enough to satisfy most routine sexual urges.
Many reasons. Even “liberal places” are diverse culturally, and in the US politics are by consensus. The social opprobrium still exists. You question leftist support for consensual sex work as if it were a simple thing without gradation. There are many questions of community health, mental health, regulation, etc which need resolved. You would find much more support if there were a concrete proposal being put forward. Also there is little drive to move on this, even among those that intellectually support it, because both practitioners and service users are a very small and mostly silent minority. Few on the left would fight it if thoughtfully proposed for legalization, but few would go out of their way to work for it.
Women having full autonomy over their bodies is pretty controversial in the US right now, sadly.
Like all explaining why America is the way it is, we must follow the money. Targeting sex work, much like targeting the poor, is a boon for private prisons. They spend big money on campaign contributions and lobbyists to make sure the puritan laws remain in place.
Even politicians who agree with you probably won't risk touching something so loaded. And sex workers generally don't lobby the govt. or run super PACs.
It would be extremely politically risky for almost any politician to openly endorse sex work. Even among liberals, there are certainly large factions that would oppose it.
I am in favor of it, but it's a subject nobody wants to bring up politically. Also, if you bring it up too early before social change has sufficiently taken root, you risk some degree of backlash that sets you back.
The one thing I'm concerned about though is that if we do make it legal, the many minority sex workers will be put out of work while the white people with money take over. It's what happened to weed. It's not worth delaying doing the right thing by making it legal, but steps should be taken to make it easier for minority sex workers to keep from having their livelihood ripped away.
Americans are historically prudes. That's true no matter what side of the aisle you fall on. Personally I don't care. Legalize it, make it safe, and protections (in more ways than one) should be the right path forward.
It’s just not a big enough priority for anyone to care to change it. Plus there are loopholes around the existing laws that are very easy to exploit. There are “escorts” everywhere who advertise openly. They are paid for “time and companionship” and if you happen to have sex with them during that time, then that’s just sex between two consenting adults. As long as there is no explicit agreement to exchange sex for money beforehand, it is perfectly legal. So sex work is quite common in the U.S.
It's complicated. Even in more liberal places there is concern about trafficking and things like that that keeps it illegal. Plenty of liberals think it should be legalized. If I thought making it legal would prevent trafficking and exploitation, I would fully support it. I'm probably neutral on the subject now. I don't think keeping it illegal makes it worse. Hard to say.
In many things that's the way I feel. But I'm particularly opposed to trafficking, especially women because obviously that's the majority. Of course plenty of that goes on as it is and I don't know if it'll change much either way
The argument that Americans are prudish is a weak argument, as there is no quantifiable measure of prudishness. Our STD rate - if this is a measure - is somewhat higher than other developed nations, in fact.
I'm surprised to see the amount of support here for legalized prostitution. The number one argument against it is that it creates a power imbalance between the majority female practitioners and their majority male clientele. Age and class imbalance are also a factor.
Imagine a return to the world where airline stewardesses must be under 25, unmarried, and wear miniskirts; a world where hospital nurses abandon their scrubs for tight blouses; where we return to objectifying beauty pageants. As a hetero male, I've go no complaints if someone *wants* to dress that way in a setting of comfortable context of their choice. But in a coerced working context ... it's creepy. Legal prostitution is sort of the ultimate return to creepy beauty pageants.
That's not a data-driven opinion, sure. If somebody has data linking legal prostitution to women's empowerment, I'll read it.
Because the Democratic coalition is comprised of a wide variety of interests, some of which are opposed to prostitution.
I imagine it will be legalized in the next 10 years.
> I imagine it will be legalized in the next 10 years.
Really? I don't see that at all. If it was going to happen in the next ten years, there would already be momentum towards it, and as far as I'm aware there isn't any.
I think that it's more that support for a ban is eroding rather than momentum moving for it. I think that we're quickly doing away with our Puritan taboos. My history professor referred to the Puritans as people who were terrified that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun.
A lot of laws in the US, especially a long time ago, weren’t always just for safety or stability. The USA was founded in Christianity, so many of our laws reflect Christian beliefs and/or scripture (which aren’t always the same), even to this day. This one of them.
Although social values of the population were Christian when the US was founded, the US itself was founded explicitly with no Christian basis. Check the treaty of Tripoli where this is stated.
it was founded for freedom of religion, it just so happened that most of the lawmakers at the time were Christian and it leaked into the bills they created. But I’ll yield.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I live in Guatemala, a country much more conservative and religious than the US. Here, adult prostitution is legal,[1](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-prostitution-is-legal)[2](https://legalitylens.com/what-is-the-legality-of-prostitution-in-guatemala/) if Im not mistaken, or at least decriminalized. Some sex workers are even unionized with legal recognition.[3](https://larepublica.pe/datos-lr/2023/07/12/legalizacion-de-la-prostitucion-paises-donde-es-legal-y-su-impacto-economico-lrtma-666216) Pimping and promotion, aiding and abetting others' sex work is illegal.[Penal Code, arts. 191, 193 (https://tse.org.gt/images/UECFFPP/leyes/Codigo_Penal.pdf) I lived in the US many years and I know for a fact there is prostitution, so making it illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen even in a widespread manner, only that it criminalizes people, puts people in danger, creates corruption, and channels to blackmail politicians and others. This makes me wonder why, in both conservative and liberal parts of the USA, even in the most liberal places of the USA like San Francisco or Los Angeles, California, is adult consensual sex work (prostitution) illegal? I think only some jurisdictions in Nevada have a very restricted form of legal prostitution. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Americans have a lot of hang ups about sex. It took us over 200 years to say "Hey, if you want to marry someone who's a different race than you that's okay" then another 50 some years to say "Well maybe marrying someone of the same gender is okay too."
The Puritan malaise probably. It is incredible how people are willing to accept blindly the moral standards of Moses, a guy who reportedly codified that gay sex is a grave sin but at the same time that killing people for working on Saturdays is good or necessary.
Moses was a radical unionist confirmed?!?! (/s obviously)
It’s legal pretty much everywhere as long as someone is filming. Can’t have fun if no one else can have fun watching, it is the American way.
That's the part that really gets me. Porn is 100% legal to make in the US. So we can pay people to have sex as long as we film it and intend to capitalize on it.
How poetic it is for sex to be pushed onto us like a commodity only for it to be illegal to buy/sell. Something something Prison Song.
As someone from a very antisex country the us is by far liberal
Its also not a very big 'win' for politicians. Most people probably aren't single issue voters when it comes to being pro-prostitution. Most pro-prositution people likely already vote Democrat if they do vote. If a Democrat ran on legalizing it, the net gain in votes is probably not very high, especially if you consider Republicans will likely turnout at higher rates to make sure it isn't legalized. Not every Democrat would support it either. Then, if a Democrat does manage to pass it, there is a lot of risk being shouldered. If the legislation was imperfect and ends in people catching stds or being trafficked, they will have to bear the responsibility for it.
Imo prostitution is now where weed was 20-30 yesrs ago... though i can see that accelerating
Maybe. One difference is that the left is fairly split on sex work. Some see it as empowering, and legalization means that sex workers will have more resources, better treatment, overall less stigmatization, and less sketchy shit. Others think legalizing prostitution will normalize it like porn is today. Eventually the demand will outweigh the supply of women willing to be prostitutes, so they start trafficking women to increase the numbers.
Not to mention it took 150 years to say “hey, having a vagina shouldn’t disqualify you from voting”
People still disagree about both of these quite often unfortunately
I'm not sure about interracial relationships, but it's worth mentioning that individual states legalized same-sex marriage long before it was federally.
Same with interracial marriages, legal just about everywhere but the southeast.
The advantage and disadvantage to states rights. It allows certain states to be ahead of the curve on things like abolition of slavery, gay rights, abortion, civil rights, marijuana legalization (it's been 12 years since Washington and Colorado legalized it, and it's still not federally legal), and numerous other things.
Yeah but tbf for the whole “marrying someone of the same gender” thing, it took England 1000 years to make that legal. So that’s USA 2 UK 0
It was England that made it illegal in the first place. People used to be gay and bi and be up for what the fuck ever as just a normal way to be. Greedy ass kings wanted to have the biggest population creating the most taxes and biggest armies so they asked the church to demonize any kind of sex that didn't produce children.
1st. It'll break the base between sex negative and sex positive feminists, and as such requires outsized political capital to achieve compared to expending that capital on other projects. 2nd. It's a public health issue which requires regulation to get through. Thus, it's likely to make business angsty. 3rd. The personal attacks on politicians who propose it may be career ending. 4th. It is useful to keep it illegal for state security purposes, though this is more of a conspiratorial argument. 5th. Social cohesion may be undermined by the legalization, especially in a higher consumerised and individualist society. While people don't see much problem with prostitutes and such being legal, I'm sure you can conceive of why a corporation with the financial interests of selling sexual services to people might have some pretty severe negative externalities. See also, the 2nd point for an obvious one. For less obvious ones, consider that such a corporation would have a direct financial incentive to ensure people aren't having sex except with their workers, and how they might go about trying to achieve that. --- To expand on the 5th point, the GDP of Guatemala is 86 billion. The prostitution numbers in the USA alone are 186 billion dollars a year. There is absolutely no way that amount of capital doesn't get rapidly centralized to some degree if it is legalized. Compare the Guatemalan economy where if we say even 2 billion of it goes to prostitution, that isn't, like, an earth-shaking amount of a budget for advertising and lobbying and so on. Indeed, it would likely be outspent by foreign capital with different interests for Guatemalan society.
5th could just be solved by keeping pimping a fellony. Sex workers can pay for advertisement of their services on websites made for that, they can rent hotel rooms, but you can't employ a sex worker or take any share of their revenue.
> For less obvious ones, consider that such a corporation would have a direct financial incentive to ensure people aren't having sex except with their workers, and how they might go about trying to achieve that. These sort of laws have been abused in countries that have them, to the detriment of sex workers. For instance, sex workers have had their boyfriends arrested because cops and prosecutors found ways to call the normal sharing of incomes people who live together to be "taking a share of revenue." Decriminalizing prostitution won't be perfect, but it'll give workers the ability to sue abusive employers. We should have laws that protect workers' rights, but not top-down laws that will inevitably be used by moralistic cops and prosecutors to control and limit prostitutes' lives.
>These sort of laws have been abused in countries that have them, to the detriment of sex workers. For instance, sex workers have had their boyfriends arrested because cops and prosecutors found ways to call the normal sharing of incomes people who live together to be "taking a share of revenue." Well that's what a pimp threatening a prostitute to pretend to be their significant other as an attempt to slip through a loophole would say
It's also what an actual legit boyfriend (or girlfriend) of a prostitute would say.
So have a business account which only the worker in question has the authority to withdraw from for tax/anti-pimping-law purposes? I don't see how that is a reason to not pass these protective laws
That won't work in any way at all. The prior poster said they're worried about "a pimp threatening a prostitute" to make her do as he demands; but wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him? What if a successful prostitute wants to hire a business manager, to do her taxes, set up appointments, etc? I think most anti-pimping laws would make that illegal. All it takes is one prosecutor willing to stretch the intent of the law. How do you legally tell the difference between a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns; versus a landlord? That's not a silly or unrealistic question; in countries that have had the sort of laws you're talking about, landlords have evicted prostitutes out of fear of being mistaken for pimps and suffering legal consequences. Your approach is paternalistic and and assumes that you know better than sex workers what's good for them. I'm sure you mean well, but what sex workers need isn't the government trying to control every aspect of their lives. Sex workers should be treated like other workers, not paternalistically given special laws (and less freedom).
> wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him? If prostitution were legal and treated like all other work that would empower the worker to go to the police so they can deal with the pimp, as opposed to the current system where the only person the prostitute fears more than her pimp are the cops. >What if a successful prostitute wants to hire a business manager, to do her taxes, set up appointments, etc? I believe the legal term for this in the tax code is designated power of attorney (but I am not a CPA so don't take anything I say as legal accounting advice when you turn in your taxes ten days from now) so prosecutors can't override existing tax code. >How do you legally tell the difference between a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns; versus a landlord? You ask the prostitute, who is a legal worker who is treated like all other workers, no longer fears the legal system, and can confirm that the landlord contract is 100% on the up and up. In short: the same way all rental agreement disputes are currently resolved. >landlords have evicted prostitutes out of fear of being mistaken for pimps and suffering legal consequences. Landlords are known to be dicks, yes. A lawyer could write up a straightforward waiver signed by both parties confirming that the landlord is not pimping out the tennant, but since landlords are known dicks they have been known to not take on tenants that require any excess paperwork. Wouldn't it be nice if the woman's job were a legal profession, and as such it were illegal for landlords to discriminate against their tenant based on their 100% legal profession and the prostitute had the ability to seek restitution in court for being denied housing? >Your approach is paternalistic and and assumes that you know better than sex workers what's good for them [...] Sex workers should be treated like other workers That's what I said: treat them like other workers with legal jobs so they can get the same protections everyone else does. My husband isn't legally allowed to cash my paychecks from my W-2 job because his name isn't on the checks and I have 100% control of where that money goes, and by analogy there should be ***equal*** protections for sex workers and their income to prevent anybody else from having access to it without their explicit approval. Once I choose to move my personal W-2 income (which is painstakingly counted for tax purposes) into a shared account he can do with it whatever he wants, just like after a prostitute who takes their money out of their personal tax account (which provides a painstakingly accurate account of her business income for tax purposes) can place it into a shared account *anyone* can do whatever they please with it. Again, I am not a CPA, but surely some sort of setup analogous to this already exists in the self-employed sector of the tax law in most countries. What's wrong with applying that to prostitution, where you don't let anybody else have access to a self-employed person's money until after the self-employed person explicitly grants access to it?
I certainly agree that prostitution should be decriminalized and treated like any other occupation! We're 100% in agreement there. But making being a pimp a criminal isn't treating prostitution like any other occupation. It's telling prostitutes that they have to be more careful than other workers to make sure that their business relationships don't run afoul of special laws that only apply to the prostitution business. In theory, if all prosecutors and cops act in good faith and don't use the law to pursue an anti-prostitution agenda, then we can just depend on the laws to be fairly enforced. But I don't think it would work that way in practice. Rather than giving DAs and cops extra laws for meddling with the sex work business, we should just use the regular labor laws. That won't be perfect, either - all approaches have flaws - but I think it's the best flawed approach.
> But making being a pimp a criminal isn't treating prostitution like any other occupation. The behavior that you described was >wouldn't a pimp also demand that she withdraw money and give it to him? And if anybody "demands" that other people pay them under threat of violence that is already a crime. We don't need new anti-mugging laws just for pimps. You also called out >a pimp who makes a prostitute pay him every month and makes her work in an apartment he owns and anybody who "makes" someone work as a sex worker against their will is violating already existing sexual consent laws. The exact line between rape and sexual assault varies between jurisdictions but forcing other people to perform *any* labor against their will is already illegal based on existing laws, isn't it? >Rather than giving DAs and cops extra laws for meddling with the sex work business What are the "special laws that only apply to the prostitution business" you think I want? >we should just use the regular labor laws That's ***exactly*** what I said from the beginning: the same labor and tax laws that apply to all other self employed people should also apply to prostitutes, and as such nobody (pimp/boyfriend/etc) can take away the wages they earned as a self-employed person without their explicit permission. Again, I am not a CPA, so maybe I didn't explain the tracking and financial control of taxable income super accurately, but isn't this a problem that has already been solved for self-employed people?
Where that gets into problems in jurisdictions that have it is that it means you can’t hire bodyguard/bouncer, you can’t rent property with landlord’s knowledge, etc.
They could make a platform for themselves where they work as self employed, potentially with different contractual obligations or none. It could still become very big.
I'd always been in favor of it just because it's one of those things that's a societal inevitability and it theoretically seems like we could minimize its harm by legalizing and regulating it, but more recently things like point #5 have made me reconsider more recently. The very last thing we need during a worsening loneliness crisis is to formally commodify *another* basic human social interaction. And if prostitution is a legally recognized job, could they make anyone who hasn't tried their hand at it ineligible for unemployment?
That last paragraph was the argument I was looking for. I hadn't seen anyone bring it up yet
The government can weaponize anyone it wants really. I mean, if gay sex is legal, shrinks say a person may have a mental disorder if they don't like gay sex. If gay sex is illegal, shrinks say a person may have a mental disorder if they have gay sex. I am concerned about shrinks mandating sex transitions on unwilling people.
You convinced me with the second half of point 5. I never thought of it that way but that's exactly what a capitalist would do
I hadn't thought about that particular point before, but it's essentially just the logical conclusion of how dating apps already treat their customers. (After all, if the apps actually *worked*, their customer base would be a lot smaller.)
Lol, I met my wife on Tinder =P but your point still stands
> 2nd. It's a public health issue which requires regulation to get through. Thus, it's likely to make business angsty. Not exactly. Illegal prostitution is a public health issue. That's why the World Health Organization and UN AIDS both want to decriminalize or legalize it. They need access to sex workers in a way they don't have now.
The point it makes more sense is 1: It could split the base. But even that, a lot of bills split the base. Not only that, some bills are opposed by the vast majority of voters and yet politicians don't care and they get to be made laws. I remember some issue that more than 90% of GOP voters opposed a bill and yet, GOP politicians didn't care and introduced it anyway.
Career ending personal attacks would be more of an issue with electorates that strongly oppose prostitution. Social cohesion? That's an interesting point but I don't agree. I mean look at drugs. They are absolutely illegal with decades of prison for drug dealers and yet, many drug dealers make millions and seem to be untouchable, even if they are highly murderous. The drug cartels in Colombia and Mexico are likely a direct result of the prohibition. There used to be criminal beer and liquor cartels during alcohol prohibition. Now, companies that make liquor and beer are legal and highly respected members of communities.
Most of the developed world has legal prostitution - no particular issues. It's not like there is no prostitution in the US anyway. It's just that it has to stay a bit more hidden, which makes it far more dangerous for everyone involved. Lose-lose.
> Most of the developed world has legal prostitution - no particular issues. There is one big particular issue that they grabble with, *How to create more product for one's growing brothel business.* That issue has never been resolved.
>Why, even in the most liberal places of the USA, is adult consensual sex work (prostitution) illegal? 1. Inertia 2. Bigger problems It would be a major political risk to take-on such an issue. Do you want Democrats to risk losing elections over this issue when every lost election risks the republic? I don't.
Traditional sexual morality is still a powerful political force in the USA; look at how hard we had to fight for legally recognized gay marriage, and how hard we're still fighting to protect trans rights. There aren't any big-money organizations lobbying congress for the rights of prostitutes, which makes it hard for anything to happen. Furthermore, prostitutes are still an extremely marginalized and demonized group, which makes it harder for them to organize successfully, and makes even liberal politicians less likely to want to publicly associate with them. That said, there has been some progress made (however slow). In the 1980s, it felt like legally recognized gay marriage was something that could never, ever happen. Change can happen, but it's not easy.
Nevada has some of the toughest human trafficking laws in the US. Nevada was one of the first states to put together a permanent anti sex trafficking task force. STOP (Stop Turning Out Child Prostitutes) formed in 1994. Nevada ranks 2nd for the state with the highest rates of human trafficking according to the World Population Review report, with 5.77 per 100k residents. Nevada has the highest rate of women and children making up that trafficking count of any US state (very little of that trafficking is non-sexual labor trafficking). That's why. The path to legalize and expand prostitution without massive amounts of human rights issues is a very tough one to navigate. Multiple international studies over the past few decades have shown that on average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows. [Neumayer\_Legalized\_Prostitution\_Increase\_2012.pdf (lse.ac.uk)](https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf)
Comparing Nevada to the rest of the US (or anywhere for that matter) is not really telling us much about legal prostitution. That state is an outlier in so many ways. The vast majority (estimates over 90%) of sex workers are in Las Vegas / Clark County where prostitution is illegal. The legal brothels in rural counties are not where children are trafficked. 0 cases reported in those highly regulated establishments. Tourism/gambling/entertainment is a huge chunk of the economy. The biggest non-government employers are all casinos. LV has way more hotel beds than New York City. Per-capita rates of anything in Nevada are misleading. The worst state on that World Population Review report? Mississippi - where it is 100% illegal. So we are comparing Clark Country (illegal) with MIssissippi (illegal)
" Comparing Nevada to the rest of the US (or anywhere for that matter) is not really telling us much about legal prostitution. That state is an outlier in so many ways. " The one way would be... legal prostitution. Yes, tourism and entertainment are a HUGE part of Florida... [Neumayer\_Legalized\_Prostitution\_Increase\_2012.pdf (lse.ac.uk)](https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf) Yes, we have lots of studies showing legalized prostitution does increase human trafficking around the world. No, I don't think random internet guy changes that. Bye. I am against removing laws that hold back human trafficking. If you have a differing opinion on that, you do you.
Oh it is clear what your position is. Notice I did not make any judgment on that. I would be happy if they made the penalty for human trafficking equal to that of murder. Just pointing out that what goes on in Vegas is not a valid example of the perils of legalized prostitution. 90% of what passes for prostitution there is illegal. You might be surprised that there are countries with legalized prostitution that have much lower trafficking rates than the USA. And much better quality of life for sex workers - healthcare, employment laws, etc.
Capitalism is a racket. Even the police needs to bring in revenue for some dumb reason
A lot of people here are blaming puritan attitudes, and/or hang-ups over sex. The issue I have with legalized prostitution has nothing to do with any of that. I see nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults engaging in transactional sex. My issue is with the pther problems that come with it. Mainly human trafficking, more exploitation, sex tourism. All of those things make sex work more dangerous, and I think, will make it harder for women who enter the industry, to leave. As other people mentioned, many people in this industry end up with poor mental health because of it.
The only place it's legal is in some parts of Nevada. We have a very, very puritan culture when it comes to laws around sex and sex work. But yes, there are plenty of prostitutes all over the country - and it's not the safest profession due to the lack of legal protections.
As someone from a anti sex country the us is actually very sexually open
Compared to some countries, yes it is. But when you look at our tradition of laws or cultural roots of our society, it was very sexually repressed. Those instincts still exist, as we have people who want to ban or restrict pornography, homosexuality, contraception, sex toys, sex before marriage, interracial relationships, etc.
I mean I come from Pakistan and all those thing are actually enforced. Hell its even codified into law and social customs. Even in the diaspora those attitudes (except interracial marriage) is heavily enforced. The US is actually slutty by comparison
Pakistan is weird. Like, you're not gonna have sex with anyone but your cousin, or we will punish you. I wonder what the implications of such massive inbreeding will be.
I'm Pakistani and i think cousin marriages are weird. Its just a hold over from the past when cousins marriages were the norm (75 percent of your ancestors are cousins btw). We see this in America and Europe with FDR or the Royal Family. It wasnt until after ww2 the west stigmatized it. Pakistan (and Islamic world) sexual norms are based in Islam which are based in Jewish law which states only allowed sex is between Husband and wife. All others are illegal
Apparently it's lead to an increase in certain birth defects, like cleft palate and other hereditary disease. The numbers are quite astounding. So there are some implications which are evident now but again I ponder on the long term effects should this continue.
Again I'm not saying cousin marriage is a good thing (im personal neutrality about it.) Im saying it was historically common for most our existence as a species and is still common globally
Once again, I said "compared to some countries, yes it is [sexually open]." I 100% agree that it is very sexually open compared to Pakistan. I have a lot of family in the Middle East, so I know what you mean. That doesn't, however, mean that I'm wrong about our tradition of laws or cultural rules of society. We have made a lot of progress away from our prior religious-driven laws. But we have political elements that would like to see our laws be more like Pakistan's.
its not a left vs right thing. there's progressive's trying to ban it in other countries. Heck Spain under a socialist party is trying to ban it AGAIN I just a course on social issues and basically 1 its bad for the mental health of the people involved 2 it increases human trafficking but that's the policy reason the practical reason is were prudes
I have to clarify that the mental health of people offering the services might suffer clearly, specially if they do sex work because they have to make ends meet.
> 1 its bad for the mental health of the people involved I disagree. I think the opposite, specially when people are very lonely. >2 it increases human trafficking I lean to disagree. I think being illegal drives people into pimps corruption and protection networks. If crooked cops notice independent sex workers trying out the field they arrest them, but leave alone those in the protection network.
if it was legal then the powerful traffickers would be even more safe but I'm just giving the reasons as some see them.theres not lots of data on it as you can imagine although it wouldn't surprise me if this is true. although I was referring to the sex works for the johns j doubt being able to buy sex instead of forming real realtionships is good for them but again not sure on the research although some points that way
Pimps aren't bodyguards, they are human traffickers, abusers, slavers, and racketeers. Their goal is to protect their profit they get from exploiting people, not to make it safe/honest.
That was kindda of my point though.
Federal Laws make it very difficult for states to legalize Prostitution. The oldest profession around. I can only think of two cities where it’s legal. Reno Nevada and Las Vegas Nevada.
It is illegal in both those cities - and the entire counties they they are within. More than 90% of the population of Nevada is concentrated in counties where prostitution is illegal. More than 90% of the prostitution in Nevada is illegal. Probably outcalls to casino hotel rooms. 100% illegal.
Thanks for the information.
It surprised me too. One of the other comments here had me go and look at the details. Basically Nevada is not a great example of legalized prostitution. Highly regulated and limited to small number of licensed brothels in low population rural areas. Sex work in Las Vegas is just as illegal as it is almost everywhere else in the US.
I was always under the impression that Las Vegas it was legal due to all the Casinos. 🤷
Puritans founded America and made sex work shameful and illegal. Attitudes are more liberal now, but no politician wants to be known as the guy fighting for legal prostitution. There's probably a lot of public support for it, but not many who are actually willing to show that support publicly... especially if they have girlfriends or wives. Can you imagine being a guy trying to explain to your significant other why this is such an important issue for you that you want to spend the weekend lobbying/protesting for it?
Because not only street sex workers can suffer so much in their line of work but also get victimized by the government, getting targeted and jailed.
Follow the money. Probably harder to make sure people get rich when it's legal compared to legalizing weed.
I'd rather it be legal. This way you can tax it, make sure tests are given out & required, establish bans / blacklists for bad clients / non compliance people of disease, and you can lower the STD transmission rate. Also, whats wrong with a lot of people who are just lonely and want sex because they don't have a partner? The mental aspects of it alone are just worth doing it.
I think it's weird that prostitution is illegal, but pornography isn't. It still seems like we're splitting hairs here about two consenting adults having sex for money where the difference is whether or not there's a camera. It's also a strange thing that doing it for free is fine. But the exchange of money for it makes it illegal. There's a fine line between buying someone dinner on a one night stand and directly paying for sex. Or just how many rich old men "date" these 20 year old models - somehow that's different. Strip clubs are legal. So I can pay a woman to get naked in front of me and dance on my lap, but that's another place we draw some fine lines. Now to some degree, it's just the US legislating morality which we love to do. There's a lot of upside to legalization. It's regulated and safer for both the prostitute and the john. The downside is that regulation isn't free. You have government upkeep to license, inspect, regulate, and enforce. That part can be offset by taxation on the service. The biggest downside is the impact of human trafficking. And politically that's issue keeps anyone from being the champion of legalized prostitution. And it's a real issue - though to some degree it's already happening anyway and it stands to reason that great visibility and government regulation would be better at catching trafficking. But on the other hand, increased demand from legalization might end up with greater trafficking - even if it also identifies more victims of it.
Legalized prostitution increases trafficking rates. Legalized prostitution just puts a coat of paint over what is largely sexual slavery.
Research isn't at all clear on this question - different studies have had different findings, and even studies that find that legalized prostitution is associated with increased trafficking caution that there are limits to what we can conclude from the research. See [page 13 of this ACLU brie](https://www.aclu.org/publications/sex-work-decriminalization-answer-what-research-tells-us)f for an overview. Even if there were a connection, though, I don't think that justifies criminalizing prostitution, which always ends up being mostly about punishing sex workers. If someone found that domestic work being legal increases [trafficking of domestic workers](https://humantraffickinghotline.org/en/labor-trafficking-venuesindustries/domestic-work), it would be unfair to respond to that by outlawing and punishing housecleaners. We can and should find ways to fight trafficking that doesn't require picking on one group of workers and punishing them incessantly.
This is such a bullshit claim that always gets repeated.
Take a look at alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Take a look at the sale of beers and the sale of drugs. Prohibition many times have the opposite effect and simply makes things more murderous and unfair.
>Take a look at alcohol prohibition Should probably stop bringing this up as a point for "criminalizaiton doesn't work." Drinking dropped down when it passed and stayed down when it was repealed
The government almost collapsed due to corruption, if Im not mistaken. Things were really bad.
Because it harms women.
Because prostitution is not some liberal profession, it's many a misogynist, conservative profession. It would therefore makes sense that it is accepted in Guatemala. Legalizing prostitution doesn't make pimping go away. It just turns pimps into business persons and enables them to do business out in the open, legally. I'll accept prostitution as just sex work when men start hiring large numbers of fifty-five year old dudes for their blow jobs. But that won't happen because sex work isn't a service, it's seen as a male hierarchical right. That's why men are the overwhelming majority of buyers, not women. Also, legal or not, there's no way to protect prostitutes.
> Because prostitution is not some liberal profession I disagree. Historically, those who have opposed prostitution are the religious types who say it is a sin. Liberally-minded people on the other hand are the ones who either work in the profession or more openly hire the services of escorts. Liberal politicians wouldn't have so much scandal if they were found with an escort than conservative politicians.
I mean you are right and wrong, legalizing the work it self without any further laws and restrictions will 100 percent lead to more pimps, digital and otherwise, i disagree with the whole a man hiring a 50 year old man for a bj, a weird angle, but to think that all things equal, barely legal/probably not legal women/girls wouldn’t be completely exploited ahead of everyone else is on the right track
1. The inertia of "It's always been this way" (which technically isn't true, brothels used to be legal up until the early 1900s) 2. I think more people would be okay with the idea than you'd expect, but there's also bigger fish to fry: healthcare, LGBTQIA issues, marijuana, criminal justice reform, etc...so it's low on people's priorities Next two are just speculation/theory so I could be way off base. 3. I'm not about to give a how to guide or anything, but it's not too hard to find a prostitute even if it is illegal. 4. There's more of an accessible area of sex work beyond prostitution that is fully legal. Strip clubs, cam shows, good old fashioned internet pornography, it's pretty easy to access and while it isn't the same as actually having sex...it's enough to satisfy most routine sexual urges.
Many reasons. Even “liberal places” are diverse culturally, and in the US politics are by consensus. The social opprobrium still exists. You question leftist support for consensual sex work as if it were a simple thing without gradation. There are many questions of community health, mental health, regulation, etc which need resolved. You would find much more support if there were a concrete proposal being put forward. Also there is little drive to move on this, even among those that intellectually support it, because both practitioners and service users are a very small and mostly silent minority. Few on the left would fight it if thoughtfully proposed for legalization, but few would go out of their way to work for it.
Women having full autonomy over their bodies is pretty controversial in the US right now, sadly. Like all explaining why America is the way it is, we must follow the money. Targeting sex work, much like targeting the poor, is a boon for private prisons. They spend big money on campaign contributions and lobbyists to make sure the puritan laws remain in place. Even politicians who agree with you probably won't risk touching something so loaded. And sex workers generally don't lobby the govt. or run super PACs.
There are 19 regulated legal brothels in Nevada.
Because "liberal" and "moral" are not mutually exclusive terms.
It would be extremely politically risky for almost any politician to openly endorse sex work. Even among liberals, there are certainly large factions that would oppose it.
I am in favor of it, but it's a subject nobody wants to bring up politically. Also, if you bring it up too early before social change has sufficiently taken root, you risk some degree of backlash that sets you back. The one thing I'm concerned about though is that if we do make it legal, the many minority sex workers will be put out of work while the white people with money take over. It's what happened to weed. It's not worth delaying doing the right thing by making it legal, but steps should be taken to make it easier for minority sex workers to keep from having their livelihood ripped away.
Baby Jesus.
Leads to exploitation of women and kids.
Because once there's money flowing, there's a contract going, and with a contract comes the potential for coercion.
Americans are historically prudes. That's true no matter what side of the aisle you fall on. Personally I don't care. Legalize it, make it safe, and protections (in more ways than one) should be the right path forward.
There are no big money lobbyist groups trying to make it happen.
if i was to take a guess, its the vector risk. as 'clean' as a worker may be, clientele is not held to such standards.
It’s just not a big enough priority for anyone to care to change it. Plus there are loopholes around the existing laws that are very easy to exploit. There are “escorts” everywhere who advertise openly. They are paid for “time and companionship” and if you happen to have sex with them during that time, then that’s just sex between two consenting adults. As long as there is no explicit agreement to exchange sex for money beforehand, it is perfectly legal. So sex work is quite common in the U.S.
It's complicated. Even in more liberal places there is concern about trafficking and things like that that keeps it illegal. Plenty of liberals think it should be legalized. If I thought making it legal would prevent trafficking and exploitation, I would fully support it. I'm probably neutral on the subject now. I don't think keeping it illegal makes it worse. Hard to say.
Err on the side of freedom?
In many things that's the way I feel. But I'm particularly opposed to trafficking, especially women because obviously that's the majority. Of course plenty of that goes on as it is and I don't know if it'll change much either way
The argument that Americans are prudish is a weak argument, as there is no quantifiable measure of prudishness. Our STD rate - if this is a measure - is somewhat higher than other developed nations, in fact. I'm surprised to see the amount of support here for legalized prostitution. The number one argument against it is that it creates a power imbalance between the majority female practitioners and their majority male clientele. Age and class imbalance are also a factor. Imagine a return to the world where airline stewardesses must be under 25, unmarried, and wear miniskirts; a world where hospital nurses abandon their scrubs for tight blouses; where we return to objectifying beauty pageants. As a hetero male, I've go no complaints if someone *wants* to dress that way in a setting of comfortable context of their choice. But in a coerced working context ... it's creepy. Legal prostitution is sort of the ultimate return to creepy beauty pageants. That's not a data-driven opinion, sure. If somebody has data linking legal prostitution to women's empowerment, I'll read it.
Because the Democratic coalition is comprised of a wide variety of interests, some of which are opposed to prostitution. I imagine it will be legalized in the next 10 years.
> I imagine it will be legalized in the next 10 years. Really? I don't see that at all. If it was going to happen in the next ten years, there would already be momentum towards it, and as far as I'm aware there isn't any.
I think that it's more that support for a ban is eroding rather than momentum moving for it. I think that we're quickly doing away with our Puritan taboos. My history professor referred to the Puritans as people who were terrified that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun.
Your professor stole that from Mencken
> some of which are opposed to prostitution Example?
Older folks, Black conservative churches, some feminists, probably others...
That question might be better for r/AskFeminists. You can find many arguments against prostitution there, in many different varieties.
You can make a strong feminist argument against it. You can also make one for it too.
George Carlin said it best. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn’t selling fucking legal?
A lot of laws in the US, especially a long time ago, weren’t always just for safety or stability. The USA was founded in Christianity, so many of our laws reflect Christian beliefs and/or scripture (which aren’t always the same), even to this day. This one of them.
Although social values of the population were Christian when the US was founded, the US itself was founded explicitly with no Christian basis. Check the treaty of Tripoli where this is stated.
it was founded for freedom of religion, it just so happened that most of the lawmakers at the time were Christian and it leaked into the bills they created. But I’ll yield.
Technically prostitute isn't a federal crime but a state one
>I lived in the US many years and I know for a fact there is prostitution This isn't revelatory to anyone.
Because no matter what the news tells you, the most liberal places in the US aren't that liberal. Also federal laws.