Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why do we take sex so seriously? What's wrong with trivializing it? We don't make a big deal about kissing, or playing golf? Animals often fuck without consent (although most other mammals have mating sessions that last less than 15 seconds).

There is a really interesting dynamic in humans where we have either evolved or socially constructed (or both) this very strong sense of importance (and also shame) around sex. Part of this has to do with ownership and the fact that we possess things and status which we pass on to a known set of descendants.

You can look at a beautiful peace of art that's colorful and evokes incredible emotions .. and that's art. Two people fucking and it's not art, it's porn .. unless it's in an art gallery as an exhibit about the porn industry.

I wish our University wasn't so insanely big. It'd be interesting to find other sentient life and see if all life tends to evolve this specific attitude around sex or if it's unique to our species.

Sex is where new people come from. Once a society loses this perspective it dies.

It is well worth reserving some things from being subsumed directly by the economic system. I don't understand the distinction ihsw2 is trying to make with the repeated argument about removal of consent, but I would agree if they simply were arguing that human sex shouldn't be commodified.

Economic and societal forces are making these women let men use their bodies. In form it looks different than traditional rape, but in function it is no different. Women are being forced to let complete strangers abuse their bodies in the most intimate ways possible.

Not all of them. Some women (and some men!) consciously and specifically choose to engage in sex work.

The way we're trying to "protect" the people being trafficked into sex work is putting them, and the ones who do it voluntarily, in even more danger.

Legalizing and regulating sex work protects them all so much more, but entirely too many of us would rather moralize about others' choices than approach the problem with harm reduction in mind.

Let's imagine a world where prostitution is entirely legalized and regulated. We still have rampant STDs, unplanned pregnancies, the dehumanizing of women, etc. The field itself is inherently destructive to all participants.

> The field itself is inherently destructive to all participants.

This is the language of moralizing, not of problem solving. You aren't interested in making anything better; you're interested in making sure everyone knows how "bad" you think this thing is.

The thing is: no-one's arguing there's badness here, just over what the bad and not-bad parts are. You aren't going to convince people that it's all bad, going about it the way you are, though.

Right. So we have what we have now, but sex workers, in general, are much safer. Seems like a win to me.

It's fine if you don't like prostitution, but what is your practical proposed solution for erradicating it?

There are plenty of alternatives. Provide these women with clear alternatives. Provide significant punishment for those who engage in prostitution, be it the users, the pimps, the prostitutes, the establishments, etc. In general, eradicate the culture of female objectification, primarily by eliminating porn. Encourage people to form committed families. Many, many, alternatives to making prostitution easier.

As human beings, we don't encourage other human beings to continue destroying themselves, just because that course of action is easiest. We try to save them from their self destructive course. We do not enable self destruction.

> harm reduction in mind.

Yep. I'm seeing many, many comments about how prositution is bad. I'm not seeing any that suggest workable alternatives. Most seem to be socialist-leaning (attaching market incentive to sex is bad), but we don't have socialism, and sex workers need protection now.

Ok, so whether or not we agree that prostitution is bad, what do we do about it? I think legalizing/regulating makes a lot more sex workers a lot safer. Those people were going to be doing sex work anyway, but now they have the state-level protections a plumber or a banker have.

Once that's done, then we can argue the morality of it to death.

Are people more likely to do something that is safe or is dangerous?

We can make similar arguments for all illegal activities. Why don't we make murder safer for the murderers? They're going to murder anyways, so we might as well keep one of the parties alive and healthy. Why don't we just give thieves all the free money they want? They are going to steal anyways, so we might as well make it more convenient for them.

In short, why have rules with negative repercussions at all? People are going to do 'wrong' anyways, so let's instead of doing something negative to them, make it as positive an experience as possible.

I don't think comparing sex work to murder is warranted. Murder is almost universally agreed upon as being morally wrong. Sex work is not as universal.

Also, murder generally involves a willing participant and a non-willing participant. Sex work, is generally two willing participants, especially if it's done with the protection of a state's legal system.

I think the problem with prostitution is that people apply the moral platform of what happens in underground sex work to above-ground sex work. But so many things change once it becomes legal that it's not an effective comparison.

My goal with sex work would be to vastly reduce the number of unwilling participants and offer protection for those who follow the law while engaging in it. I think "it makes me feel bad therefor should be illegal" is understandable, but not incredibly nuanced and ends up hurting many more people in the long run.

Why is willingness the magic that makes it alright? Many actions are engaged in willingly that are not good. Suicide is the primary one that comes to mind.

I think someone should be able to kill themself if they want.

> Animals often fuck without consent (although most other mammals have mating sessions that last less than 15 seconds).

... are you advocating non-consensual sex should be legal?[1] I don't think so, but I'm not really sure how "animals have non-consensual sex" really supports anything related to this argument.

[1] To be clear, there are people on various places on Reddit that do advocate for non-consensual sex to be legalized... as a measure to "prevent rape." I kid you not.

I don't think that the point the GP is trying to make. It's rather the curious uniqueness that we imbue sex with. We treat sex as different from any other human interaction. Why?

That's probably the most dystopian version I've heard of, of people gaming KPIs.

You made a very good point and I'm in full agreement. Sex is overrated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com