Most sex work advocates advocate for decriminalization over legalization. Brothels tend to favor brothel owners over the sex workers. What actually keeps sex workers safe is decriminalization so they can report incidents or unsafe conditions that happen to them without any legal quandary. Here is a good outline of the difference between legalization and decriminalization: https://decriminalizesex.work/why-decriminalization/briefing-papers/decriminalization-is-the-only-solution/
Point is it’s no business of the government to regulate the sex between consenting adults regardless of if payment was exchanged or not. When gay sex was no longer illegal they did not legalize and regulate it, they simply decriminalized it. Same should be for sex work. We can decriminalize sex work while also still banning sex trafficking and prostitution of minors.
Here’s another article on why decriminalization is better than legalization: https://www.businessinsider.com/sex-worker-explains-the-difference-between-legalizing-and-decriminalizing-prostitution-2015-6?amp
Decriminalization creates grey area for bad faith actors like pimps to operate in. It also means that sex work can't be organized in any way leading to lower trust between sex worker and client, it also makes it harder to regulate.
The main benefits brothels offer to sex workers is reduced work load and safety, yes you could have your own website where clients go only to book you, in the same way you could have your own taxi company where people go only too book you instead of going to uber, but the problem is less consumers will go to your website.
If you work in a brothel customers come to you and when you don't have customers you get a break. I remember a friend of mine had a WOW guild member who was a prostitute in the Netherlands. She was one of their most active members because when she could make a great living and had frequent downtime.
Also decriminalization pretty much only applies to being a prostitute, the problem is it doesn't apply to being a client for a prostitute. This indirectly hurts sex workers as less people are going to risk jailtime meaning less money.
It would also be harder to sell decriminalization as it only benefits the prostitute themself, meanwhile legalization would benefit customers of prostitutes and anybody who enjoys tax revenue.
The reason why porn in American is legal is because due to the nature of porn there is more room for their t be an industry around it, besides the actual actors there can be directors,cameramen,sales people who sell the dvds or tapes, the people who make the dvds or tapes and so on.
I think Ruth Bater Ginsberg straight up stated that Americas ban on prostitution would not hold up in court but no one has enough money or incentive to challenge it.
Decriminalization makes it easier for prostitutes to report abuse. Also, nothing about decriminalization means that sex work can’t be organized. If anything, it allows sex workers to organize themselves more. Also, decriminalization does benefit the client, decriminalization including not prosecuting customers. I’d suggest reading what I linked and other sources by actual sex workers and legal advocates that study this stuff. We’ve seen the effect of legalization: it still means criminalizing the workers, makes them not report actual abuse, letting rapists go unreported. Decriminalization is better for both customer and sex worker. A lot of sex workers prefer working independently without their revenue being cut and given to the owner. Forcing sex workers to only be able to work in brothels is just another way of pushing sex work underground.
Brothels certainly offer various benefits. But I'm not sure you have really distinguished the benefits of brothels from the benefits of legalization and regulation.
Comparing illicit streetwalkers to legal brothels is not a fair 1 to 1 comparison. And you don't seem to have put any consideration into possible downsides/limitations of brothels (limited facilities, added cost and overhead, disability accommodations, etc)
I think that after you isolate brothels from other confounding variables, one could definitely find situations where alternatives would be superior.
Disability, mobility, and medical limitations in particular come to mind if you need a specific example
To build on that—there are a lot of professions that involve getting behind closed door with someone who could physically overpower you.
But when those professions are legal you don’t standout as a target as much because you can still go to the police if something happens.
When prostitution is illegal prostitutes behind closed doors make good targets because they won’t go to the police.
If OP were to make an apples to apples comparison of illegal solo practitioner vs illegal brothel then they’d have to consider that the people at an illegal brothel are likely trafficked and/or have no rights, limited access to the revenue they are generated, and may be intentionally hooked on drugs to make them dependent.
Being trafficked doesn’t sound much better than being subjected at random to violent predators which makes OP’s scenario sound less rosey.
Legal and regulated ≠ Best for SWers btw.
However as a SWer I agree in some contexts, disagree in others. It's highly dependent on brothel management and policies. The most "prestigious" and glorified brothel in my city happens to be the one majority of us working girls wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole in many aspects, especially when it comes to personal safety. Whereas the trashy inner city brothel filled with girls in the depths of addiction happens to be the one I've felt safest working from. I may regularly walk in on girls shooting up in the bathroom, but I've always felt safe in bookings because reception staff have always turned away known dangerous clients and supported me for whatever reason I've had to walk out of s booking.
Why isn't "legal and regulated" best for sexworkers? I imagine there are some things like paying taxes, obligatory regular testing that can be a downside, but are they so much of a downside it's not worth it?
Legal not only brings in taxes but also potentially more competition - lower prices.
Also one worries about stuff like https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/13/sex-work-labor-law-world-first-daan-bauwens-utsopi-belgium/
A month ago, Belgium passed a law permitting employers of sex workers to demand they not refuse too many customers. Now Reason has a much more positive take on this law and it tends to be more careful than other publications in its journalism. Still, one can worry about some regulations making sex workers less safe rather than more.
It wasnt *my* take. That said, which specific activities should be taxed is a policy question not something with an inherent answer. And what's good for the government, what's good for sex workers, and what's good for society might be three different answers.
Have you considered how OP's suggesting what is essentially a public utility with a highly regulated form of business?
Sex workers would unionize, and quickly. A lot of those brothels would be co-ops and employee owned.
That only helps against "turning down clients you think are gross or dangerous is bad for profits". It doesn't protect against "turning down clients you think are gross or dangerous may constitute unlawful discrimination".
Unions typically have a good amount of lobbying power. I find it hard to imagine that a country would be okay with brothels like OP is talking about and not have robust consent protections.
Some do some don't. Many nurses are unionized but my experience is that they are not adequately protected from abusive patients. And my limited knowledge of legislation regarding sex work is that it does not tend to come down on the side of sex workers.
Correction, *some* brothels are better for prostitutes.
Many brothels, mainly illegal ones, are hotspots for pimping and human trafficking which is a disgusting form of modern slavery which the government fails to do anything much about.
Secondly, many prostitutes prefer working online because they can be their own boss. They get to keep all of their money and many prostitution sites have ratings and review systems, which means that the working girls can see who exactly they are going into business with from the viewpoint of other women.
Lastly, many brothels, especially the lower end ones, are disgusting disease-ridden places which are awful for both the client and the prostitute. Obviously this is not true for all, but some are working in the most terrible conditions, even if they are legal.
Since when are brothels demonised?
There's quite a few brothels in my area and are all viewed as positive thing by those that work there, especially compared to working on the street.
Yeah. They recently changed the law in my state and deregulated them. They use to require special permits to operate, but now they are just managed under regular workplace safety regulations. The rules are still strict, but it's like any high risk workplace.
For all involved? What about a sex worker who wants to work on their own terms, at their own rates, on their own hours, and doesn’t want someone else to get a cut of the money they earned with their own labour?
you could do that
in the same way you could hand out cards asking people to use you as a taxi instead of just driving for Uber.
But in this arrangement you get so many more customers that you end up making more.
>This assumes these brothels are legal and regulated.
This is a big assumption. The problem with legalizing brothels is that it completely warps all the incentives of institutions that help limit harm from the sex industry.
Because legislation enacting such a measure is the policy of the current government they aren't going to work too hard on scrutinizing the outcome of their own policy. studies on the impact of policy can be conducted to avoid digging too deep.
Law enforcement gets to immediately drop an entire category of crime off their books, they're happy about that. But it can actually be easier to traffic people into the industry, force people against their will, or employ underage workers because police now have less contact with the sex industry and there is no systemic intelligence gathering and collation. How often are police raiding McDonald's to bust them for illegal workers? it's essentially the same crime if brothels are legal.
Lastly managers will be incentivized to squeeze as much as they can get out of their workers, it's no different than working for a pimp. Only now the managers order and the John's money has the legitimization of law behind it. Do you trust your manager to screen clients if he needs to hit his monthly bonus? will they fire you if you refuse too many clients? can they blackball you from the industry? (keep in mind the most interested and capable investors for obtaining brothel licenses will be the organized criminal elements who formerly ran the sex industry) above board does not necessarily mean better conditions for workers.
Am genuinely interested to understand why. Do you already have an established client base and don't need a middleman?
For many trades they start out in some kind of apprenticeship situation, then go out on their own. Isn't this just a similar thing?
I have a client base, I work when and where I want, I travel, I have screening methods. There is no need for a brothel or someone else taking a cut of my earnings. Very different kind of work. I’m a male escort however, so I realize my situation is different than that of a woman’s
Yeh, so you're effectively an experienced independent, it doesn't make financial sense for someone else to take a cut.
This isn't everyone though, for many it makes financial and safety sense to outsource the booking and vetting process, plus the physical security aspects. Especially if just staring out. Really no different from any other industry.
Yeah, which is why I gave my stance, as OP stated brothels are “the best form of prostitution for all involved”. Certainly not the case for a lot of us, especially escorts with experience.
I can agree there’s definitely benefits. There’s just no way we can keep sex work strictly to brothels, it simply won’t happen.
Assuming your idea goes hand in hand with some sort of legislation against other forms of sex work, I would have to say, this would overall be more harmful to sex workers than helpful.
> being a sex worker can be dangerous but operating in a brothel minimizes that risk
Having a pimp does not minimize that risk. You've just traded one danger for another.
Legality and regulated oversight significantly reduce the worst aspects of pimping, and legal, regulated brothels mitigate the most dangerous aspects of prostitution as a whole.
Legalization may reduce it, but regulations still criminalize sex workers that fall outside of these regulations. It still holds many of the same issues as full criminalization does: putting sex workers outside the bounds of the law in danger and less likely to report sexual violence.
This is why I’m for complete decriminalization. It provides the most protections for sex workers and does not favor owners of brothels and pimps, but the actual sex worker. There’s no reason the government should regulate consensual sex, period.
What I am saying is that regulation costs money, and there aren’t that many politicians who will run on the platform of legalizing prostitution because they would view it as something that makes them unelectable. Much of the electorate may be against it for moral reason, and some of the electorate would be against it because they wouldn’t want an increase in taxes or a shuffling of their tax dollars going towards regulating prostitution. I agree with your point in general that regulating it would be very beneficial, I just think it’s going to be tough to find a politician that would put that on their platform, and it would be further challenging for that person to win. They can tout the increased tax revenue all they want but I just don’t see it as a platform politicians will stand on
True, I am talking from the perspective of the United States. Though I have family that are Dutch citizens for example, and they have said that even in countries like that, most of the regulation is related to where the establishments can be as opposed to about health/sex worker protection
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
i assume by pairbonding you mean having both parents physically and emotionally available, as well as the parents being decent role models? in that case, you would be correct
Yes. The parents use their wisdom to select and connect an appropriate relationship.
There are societies that have abused this and treat children as a commodity but western society does not generally have this problem.
First, that isn't prostitution unless you are treating the children as commodity.
Second, can you please explain how a parent selecting a random child to pair bond is superior to allowing people to select their own partners when they are ready. It's not like the parents spend extensive time with the potential partners getting to know them. Also, who someone is as a child is not necessarily informative on who they are as an adult.
I can't think of a single reason that child pair bonding is a good idea.
That isn't what I asked. You can say that you know your child and understand who they are. But how do you pick another child to pair bond. There is no way for you know another person's child well enough to know who they are or how they will treat your child later on in life. Please explain how choosing a random child for your child to marry is a good idea.
You communicate with your child and as they build a personality and grow into an adolescent you know them deeply and they communicate their affections and you facilitate with your community connections.
But you said to pairbond at a young age. It would be impossible to do that if you are waiting till after adolescence to learn who your child will grow up to be.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's pretty straight forward. Young people should hook up and love each other for their entire life.
This requires a great deal of trust in their parents and their community.
Which is fair enough, but at the risk of sounding like an internet denizen, we live in a society, different people like different things at different times in their lives.
Grass is greener syndrome.
They think I have this. I'm good enough for this and I still could put in more effort so I must be good enough for this better mate. Then they go after it.
We are adaptable. Incompatibility doesn't exist. Someone is not actively engaged in the relationship if it's incompatible.
Incompatibility does indeed exist for a large variety of reasons.
If one partner doesn't want children.
Beliefs such as religious views.
Views on things like vaccination or abortion.
To name a few incompatibilities that could tear a relationship apart. That doesn't include things like unfaithful partners, loss of a child, or severe illness that can cause relationships to fall apart.
>Incompatible is just a repackaging of inadequacy and rejection.
So you seem believe that if one partner wants kids and the other partner doesn't, that is a simple matter to resolve. How would you resolve this issue?
>Adding a qualifier to "not you" doesn't make it into something other than rejection.
I don't understand your meaning here. But on the subject of rejection, how can you be certain that your child will not just reject the child you have chosen for them. Why do you believe that a parent's opinion is superior to that of their child in regards to how that child's life should unfold.
Most sex work advocates advocate for decriminalization over legalization. Brothels tend to favor brothel owners over the sex workers. What actually keeps sex workers safe is decriminalization so they can report incidents or unsafe conditions that happen to them without any legal quandary. Here is a good outline of the difference between legalization and decriminalization: https://decriminalizesex.work/why-decriminalization/briefing-papers/decriminalization-is-the-only-solution/ Point is it’s no business of the government to regulate the sex between consenting adults regardless of if payment was exchanged or not. When gay sex was no longer illegal they did not legalize and regulate it, they simply decriminalized it. Same should be for sex work. We can decriminalize sex work while also still banning sex trafficking and prostitution of minors. Here’s another article on why decriminalization is better than legalization: https://www.businessinsider.com/sex-worker-explains-the-difference-between-legalizing-and-decriminalizing-prostitution-2015-6?amp
Decriminalization creates grey area for bad faith actors like pimps to operate in. It also means that sex work can't be organized in any way leading to lower trust between sex worker and client, it also makes it harder to regulate. The main benefits brothels offer to sex workers is reduced work load and safety, yes you could have your own website where clients go only to book you, in the same way you could have your own taxi company where people go only too book you instead of going to uber, but the problem is less consumers will go to your website. If you work in a brothel customers come to you and when you don't have customers you get a break. I remember a friend of mine had a WOW guild member who was a prostitute in the Netherlands. She was one of their most active members because when she could make a great living and had frequent downtime. Also decriminalization pretty much only applies to being a prostitute, the problem is it doesn't apply to being a client for a prostitute. This indirectly hurts sex workers as less people are going to risk jailtime meaning less money. It would also be harder to sell decriminalization as it only benefits the prostitute themself, meanwhile legalization would benefit customers of prostitutes and anybody who enjoys tax revenue. The reason why porn in American is legal is because due to the nature of porn there is more room for their t be an industry around it, besides the actual actors there can be directors,cameramen,sales people who sell the dvds or tapes, the people who make the dvds or tapes and so on. I think Ruth Bater Ginsberg straight up stated that Americas ban on prostitution would not hold up in court but no one has enough money or incentive to challenge it.
Decriminalization makes it easier for prostitutes to report abuse. Also, nothing about decriminalization means that sex work can’t be organized. If anything, it allows sex workers to organize themselves more. Also, decriminalization does benefit the client, decriminalization including not prosecuting customers. I’d suggest reading what I linked and other sources by actual sex workers and legal advocates that study this stuff. We’ve seen the effect of legalization: it still means criminalizing the workers, makes them not report actual abuse, letting rapists go unreported. Decriminalization is better for both customer and sex worker. A lot of sex workers prefer working independently without their revenue being cut and given to the owner. Forcing sex workers to only be able to work in brothels is just another way of pushing sex work underground.
Brothels certainly offer various benefits. But I'm not sure you have really distinguished the benefits of brothels from the benefits of legalization and regulation. Comparing illicit streetwalkers to legal brothels is not a fair 1 to 1 comparison. And you don't seem to have put any consideration into possible downsides/limitations of brothels (limited facilities, added cost and overhead, disability accommodations, etc) I think that after you isolate brothels from other confounding variables, one could definitely find situations where alternatives would be superior. Disability, mobility, and medical limitations in particular come to mind if you need a specific example
To build on that—there are a lot of professions that involve getting behind closed door with someone who could physically overpower you. But when those professions are legal you don’t standout as a target as much because you can still go to the police if something happens. When prostitution is illegal prostitutes behind closed doors make good targets because they won’t go to the police. If OP were to make an apples to apples comparison of illegal solo practitioner vs illegal brothel then they’d have to consider that the people at an illegal brothel are likely trafficked and/or have no rights, limited access to the revenue they are generated, and may be intentionally hooked on drugs to make them dependent. Being trafficked doesn’t sound much better than being subjected at random to violent predators which makes OP’s scenario sound less rosey.
Yeah. Started writing all of those specifics. But then realized I was getting into the weeds.
Legal and regulated ≠ Best for SWers btw. However as a SWer I agree in some contexts, disagree in others. It's highly dependent on brothel management and policies. The most "prestigious" and glorified brothel in my city happens to be the one majority of us working girls wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole in many aspects, especially when it comes to personal safety. Whereas the trashy inner city brothel filled with girls in the depths of addiction happens to be the one I've felt safest working from. I may regularly walk in on girls shooting up in the bathroom, but I've always felt safe in bookings because reception staff have always turned away known dangerous clients and supported me for whatever reason I've had to walk out of s booking.
Why isn't "legal and regulated" best for sexworkers? I imagine there are some things like paying taxes, obligatory regular testing that can be a downside, but are they so much of a downside it's not worth it?
Legal not only brings in taxes but also potentially more competition - lower prices. Also one worries about stuff like https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/13/sex-work-labor-law-world-first-daan-bauwens-utsopi-belgium/ A month ago, Belgium passed a law permitting employers of sex workers to demand they not refuse too many customers. Now Reason has a much more positive take on this law and it tends to be more careful than other publications in its journalism. Still, one can worry about some regulations making sex workers less safe rather than more.
“It’s bad because you might actually have to pay taxes that you should have been paying anyway (at least under US tax law) is certainly a take lmao.
Pimping is wrong, unless it's the government doing it.
It wasnt *my* take. That said, which specific activities should be taxed is a policy question not something with an inherent answer. And what's good for the government, what's good for sex workers, and what's good for society might be three different answers.
Have you considered how OP's suggesting what is essentially a public utility with a highly regulated form of business? Sex workers would unionize, and quickly. A lot of those brothels would be co-ops and employee owned.
That only helps against "turning down clients you think are gross or dangerous is bad for profits". It doesn't protect against "turning down clients you think are gross or dangerous may constitute unlawful discrimination".
Unions typically have a good amount of lobbying power. I find it hard to imagine that a country would be okay with brothels like OP is talking about and not have robust consent protections.
Some do some don't. Many nurses are unionized but my experience is that they are not adequately protected from abusive patients. And my limited knowledge of legislation regarding sex work is that it does not tend to come down on the side of sex workers.
Correction, *some* brothels are better for prostitutes. Many brothels, mainly illegal ones, are hotspots for pimping and human trafficking which is a disgusting form of modern slavery which the government fails to do anything much about. Secondly, many prostitutes prefer working online because they can be their own boss. They get to keep all of their money and many prostitution sites have ratings and review systems, which means that the working girls can see who exactly they are going into business with from the viewpoint of other women. Lastly, many brothels, especially the lower end ones, are disgusting disease-ridden places which are awful for both the client and the prostitute. Obviously this is not true for all, but some are working in the most terrible conditions, even if they are legal.
Since when are brothels demonised? There's quite a few brothels in my area and are all viewed as positive thing by those that work there, especially compared to working on the street.
Let me guess - Aussie? Y'all have got better attitudes about that kind of thing. They're very demonized in the United States.
Yeah. They recently changed the law in my state and deregulated them. They use to require special permits to operate, but now they are just managed under regular workplace safety regulations. The rules are still strict, but it's like any high risk workplace.
For all involved? What about a sex worker who wants to work on their own terms, at their own rates, on their own hours, and doesn’t want someone else to get a cut of the money they earned with their own labour?
you could do that in the same way you could hand out cards asking people to use you as a taxi instead of just driving for Uber. But in this arrangement you get so many more customers that you end up making more.
>This assumes these brothels are legal and regulated. This is a big assumption. The problem with legalizing brothels is that it completely warps all the incentives of institutions that help limit harm from the sex industry. Because legislation enacting such a measure is the policy of the current government they aren't going to work too hard on scrutinizing the outcome of their own policy. studies on the impact of policy can be conducted to avoid digging too deep. Law enforcement gets to immediately drop an entire category of crime off their books, they're happy about that. But it can actually be easier to traffic people into the industry, force people against their will, or employ underage workers because police now have less contact with the sex industry and there is no systemic intelligence gathering and collation. How often are police raiding McDonald's to bust them for illegal workers? it's essentially the same crime if brothels are legal. Lastly managers will be incentivized to squeeze as much as they can get out of their workers, it's no different than working for a pimp. Only now the managers order and the John's money has the legitimization of law behind it. Do you trust your manager to screen clients if he needs to hit his monthly bonus? will they fire you if you refuse too many clients? can they blackball you from the industry? (keep in mind the most interested and capable investors for obtaining brothel licenses will be the organized criminal elements who formerly ran the sex industry) above board does not necessarily mean better conditions for workers.
As a sex worker, no thank you. I would not want to work in a brothel. I already pay my taxes and get tested regularly.
Am genuinely interested to understand why. Do you already have an established client base and don't need a middleman? For many trades they start out in some kind of apprenticeship situation, then go out on their own. Isn't this just a similar thing?
I have a client base, I work when and where I want, I travel, I have screening methods. There is no need for a brothel or someone else taking a cut of my earnings. Very different kind of work. I’m a male escort however, so I realize my situation is different than that of a woman’s
Yeh, so you're effectively an experienced independent, it doesn't make financial sense for someone else to take a cut. This isn't everyone though, for many it makes financial and safety sense to outsource the booking and vetting process, plus the physical security aspects. Especially if just staring out. Really no different from any other industry.
Yeah, which is why I gave my stance, as OP stated brothels are “the best form of prostitution for all involved”. Certainly not the case for a lot of us, especially escorts with experience.
🤮
I can agree there’s definitely benefits. There’s just no way we can keep sex work strictly to brothels, it simply won’t happen. Assuming your idea goes hand in hand with some sort of legislation against other forms of sex work, I would have to say, this would overall be more harmful to sex workers than helpful.
> being a sex worker can be dangerous but operating in a brothel minimizes that risk Having a pimp does not minimize that risk. You've just traded one danger for another.
Legality and regulated oversight significantly reduce the worst aspects of pimping, and legal, regulated brothels mitigate the most dangerous aspects of prostitution as a whole.
Legalization may reduce it, but regulations still criminalize sex workers that fall outside of these regulations. It still holds many of the same issues as full criminalization does: putting sex workers outside the bounds of the law in danger and less likely to report sexual violence. This is why I’m for complete decriminalization. It provides the most protections for sex workers and does not favor owners of brothels and pimps, but the actual sex worker. There’s no reason the government should regulate consensual sex, period.
I think the issue is that the public is often unwilling to commit tax dollars on supporting regulation for this industry
But that’s the beauty of making it regulated and legal. You can tax it, like any other business.
What I am saying is that regulation costs money, and there aren’t that many politicians who will run on the platform of legalizing prostitution because they would view it as something that makes them unelectable. Much of the electorate may be against it for moral reason, and some of the electorate would be against it because they wouldn’t want an increase in taxes or a shuffling of their tax dollars going towards regulating prostitution. I agree with your point in general that regulating it would be very beneficial, I just think it’s going to be tough to find a politician that would put that on their platform, and it would be further challenging for that person to win. They can tout the increased tax revenue all they want but I just don’t see it as a platform politicians will stand on
Clearly it has happened in some countries, I guess just not yours.
True, I am talking from the perspective of the United States. Though I have family that are Dutch citizens for example, and they have said that even in countries like that, most of the regulation is related to where the establishments can be as opposed to about health/sex worker protection
You clearly don’t know the difference
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Finally a real answer
[удалено]
i assume by pairbonding you mean having both parents physically and emotionally available, as well as the parents being decent role models? in that case, you would be correct
Yes. The parents use their wisdom to select and connect an appropriate relationship. There are societies that have abused this and treat children as a commodity but western society does not generally have this problem.
First, that isn't prostitution unless you are treating the children as commodity. Second, can you please explain how a parent selecting a random child to pair bond is superior to allowing people to select their own partners when they are ready. It's not like the parents spend extensive time with the potential partners getting to know them. Also, who someone is as a child is not necessarily informative on who they are as an adult. I can't think of a single reason that child pair bonding is a good idea.
Successful parents understand their children very deeply. I think parenting done well never results in resentment during teenage years.
That isn't what I asked. You can say that you know your child and understand who they are. But how do you pick another child to pair bond. There is no way for you know another person's child well enough to know who they are or how they will treat your child later on in life. Please explain how choosing a random child for your child to marry is a good idea.
You communicate with your child and as they build a personality and grow into an adolescent you know them deeply and they communicate their affections and you facilitate with your community connections.
But you said to pairbond at a young age. It would be impossible to do that if you are waiting till after adolescence to learn who your child will grow up to be.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
.....what?
It's pretty straight forward. Young people should hook up and love each other for their entire life. This requires a great deal of trust in their parents and their community.
So you’re saying the best form of prostitition is no prostitution? Not the most helpful addition to the conversation.
No he's saying the best form of prostitution is arranged child marriages.
Honestly I cannot understand the draw of prostitution. I don't understand why anyone would prefer that to pornography or just imaginative masurbation.
You don’t understand why people would enjoy actual sex over jerking off? Have you had the sex?
It's great the first time then it's just meh.
Then you very likely failed in selecting a sexually compatible partner... When done right the sex gets better with time.
Which is fair enough, but at the risk of sounding like an internet denizen, we live in a society, different people like different things at different times in their lives.
What if the two people incompatible?
I think typically it comes down to greed rather than incompatibility.
How do relationships fall apart because of greed more than incompatibility?
Grass is greener syndrome. They think I have this. I'm good enough for this and I still could put in more effort so I must be good enough for this better mate. Then they go after it. We are adaptable. Incompatibility doesn't exist. Someone is not actively engaged in the relationship if it's incompatible.
Incompatibility does indeed exist for a large variety of reasons. If one partner doesn't want children. Beliefs such as religious views. Views on things like vaccination or abortion. To name a few incompatibilities that could tear a relationship apart. That doesn't include things like unfaithful partners, loss of a child, or severe illness that can cause relationships to fall apart.
Incompatible is just a repackaging of inadequacy and rejection. Adding a qualifier to "not you" doesn't make it into something other than rejection.
>Incompatible is just a repackaging of inadequacy and rejection. So you seem believe that if one partner wants kids and the other partner doesn't, that is a simple matter to resolve. How would you resolve this issue? >Adding a qualifier to "not you" doesn't make it into something other than rejection. I don't understand your meaning here. But on the subject of rejection, how can you be certain that your child will not just reject the child you have chosen for them. Why do you believe that a parent's opinion is superior to that of their child in regards to how that child's life should unfold.
....what?!