Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulftw | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what would Amnesty International say - they support decriminalization of sex work [1], this article seems to pull in the opposite direction.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-ri...

View on HN

The aspect of victimization that comes with sex work is really embedded into capitalist society. If people were not compelled to work (basics like housing, food and medical taken care of) then sex work would truly become a choice and not an expression of oppression.

Not to say it's never a choice, but we have to acknowledge the underlying struggle that often comes with it (homelessness, drug abuse, broken homes, no viable source of income).

... but we have to acknowledge the underlying struggle that often comes with it (homelessness, drug abuse, broken homes, no viable source of income).

Being a woman.

(I wasn't actually joking. Men typically make vastly more than women and housing is crazy expensive...etc. Anyone care to explain the downvote? Poverty has been well documented as being an overwhelmingly female issue.)

Thank you for helping me understand. I did not think from that perspective.

I don't know if I agree that it does. There's a difference between being in control of sex work, and entering into a situation that is potentially exploitative, difficult to exit, and might become unwilling in time. The article has one case, and I have personal familiarity of helping with another.

Like I said though, I don't know. The legal response from the article is a gray area to me.

I don't know that the article pulls in the opposite direction of decriminalization; you could see it as pulling in the direction of legalization and protective regulation (which is usually seen as beyond decriminalization), rather than the opposite direction. (Yes, I think the implication in the article is that certain politicians are pulling for criminalization based on examples like this, but that doesn't mean that the example inherently justifies that.)

(UK is already decriminalized, and actually AFAIK legalized but with minimal specific regulation.)

Title says 'exploit homeless for sex' - starts with a negative label. Then it proposes filtering out the ads, changing the law to make it illegal, etc. I think it's pretty clear what the author's view is (or what kind of sentiment they thought would attract more ad impressions).

The English law is a mess, and can't really be described as decriminalized or legalised.

The core activity - people exchanging sex for cash - is legal, but a bunch of other stuff around the activity is illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com