Hacker News Reader

Comment by roxgib | Hacker News Reader

A reminder that the law, and the bureaucracy, don't keep up with the latest social norms. This kind of work might be slowly becoming more socially acceptable, but it's easy for people who surround themselves with others who approve to forget that most of the world, even in liberal countries, still views it very negatively. Not judging, just worth pointing out. I sometimes see the same thing with drugs - people are surprised when their drug use causes them issues, because they think everyone just accepts in now.

View on HN

Prostitution being acceptable is not a social norm except in one small fraction of the population. Most people still view it with revulsion.

It's so much more acceptable than it was even in early '00s. I'm right now at a standard tech conference, sponsored by a company with the goal of empowering sex workers through tech. Sex work is mentioned in the popular shows without being weird or the main topic.

It's of course generation and location dependent, but I don't expect any people in my circles to have a negative view on it.

It sounds like we're agreeing.

Depends on the "one small fraction of the population". I'd go with "most people don't see it as revolting and many don't see it negatively" for the area I live in and for <40s.

How big a slice of the global population are people under 40 in your area?

in the US at least. It's legal, taxable and socially acceptable in a lot of european countries.

Prostitution is closely tied with drug and human trafficking, even if it is “legal and taxable” kind, and most people here know that. It is definitely not socially acceptable because of that and the historical stigma.

>it's easy for people who surround themselves with others who approve to forget that most of the world, even in liberal countries, still views it very negatively.

Yes, but remember this happened in the United States, which is a country that recently banned abortion in many of its states. It is not at all a "liberal country", even though parts of it, and a significant part of its population, are quite liberal. In particular, the people working in jobs like customs and immigration enforcement are NOT liberal at all.

How do you define "liberal"? Per my understanding, the United States and liberalism are almost synonymous. The US is basically the representative of liberalism on the world stage, at least that's how most of the world tends to think of us.

Economically? Perhaps. Socially? You could only say that if you're cruelly joking.

The two might be conceptually-separable but they tend to go hand in hand in practice. Although maybe you have some different things in mind by "socially liberal" than I do.

When I think "liberal" I think the liberal vein of natural rights philosophy - Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, et cetera - which implies a kind of unique anthropology in which man is no longer axiomatically communal, but first and foremost an individual without a common final end with his fellow man. This is the philosophical basis for both "economic" and "social" liberalism.

The US uses "liberal" to mean "progressive". In most of the world, "liberal" means something closer to "libertarian". It generally implies an interest in laissez-faire capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com