So what would you pick? I’d rather take her than some religious nut that preaches/screeches abstinence.

Eh… do you hire the person with the degree or the one with ten years of industry experience?

deleted by creator

I never said they don’t have extremely high rates of being sexually assaulted - you did and then you proceeded to argue against yourself.

If you read the document you linked though, you’d see that it actually supports the decriminalisation of sex work because this would reduce the amount of violence experienced by sex workers.

It also says that the proportion of men who are violent against sex workers is quite small and those men are serial offenders.

Again, stop listening to conservatives on this and actually read the documents instead of trying to find things to support your own point of view.

It’s an imperfect comparison because sex workers sell their body and take on risks that way. Drug dealers sell a product and aren’t necessarily endangering themselves in the same way.

deleted by creator

Nah, I’d argue that you’re both partially correct.

The romanticized ideal of starting a family/marriage on the basis of “true love” has been around forever.

Reality has been more of a mixed bag throughout large patches of human history. Accidental pregnancies, dynastic politics and plain economical necessities were probably foundations for many more marriages than actual love.

(There’s also that whole can of worms of whether “True Love at First Sight™” even is a good foundation for marriage, but that’s neither here nor there.)

I think removing the stigma and changing the law are both worthy goals, and that one can facilitate the other, but I don’t think the stigma can ever be fully removed. Laws can be changed with a single vote, but cultural values never really go away; at best, they become fringe views, and even that usually takes a very long time.

All your examples are things you say are stigmatized, just not in certain circles. In other words they’re actually counterexamples, unless you’re agreeing with me and I’m totally misleading your tone. If the goal is for prostitution to be destigmatized only in certain circles, then we’re already there. Mission accomplished!

It is a way for a society to condemn something

If there’s a difference between society condemning something and that something being stigmatized, I’m falling to see what it is.

That has nothing to do with public perception which has everything to do with stigmatization.

The fact that you listed things that have historically been highly stigmatised because of the law is bizarre.

(Except jaywalking, not sure where that one is coming from)

All of those are/were stigmatized specifically because of legal status.

What are you even taking about, my man.

The law usually reflects what people think is moral. Not all people of course, but a critical mass. Smoking weed is still widely considered immoral. Drinking was considered immoral by a lot of people when Prohibition started, and it still is by a smaller but still substantial number of people.

Jaywalking is more complicated, because there was a deliberate campaign to stigmatize it. I can’t recall if it was made a crime to promote the stigma or in response to it, but a sigma was definitely involved.

Let’s start with any kind of sex ed, period. And no, “save yourself for Jesus” doesn’t count.

We have legalised sex work in my country.

Don’t remember these questions ever coming up.

The trafficking can also be dealt with, through means such as actually investigating workplaces and ensuring they’re compliant with workplace laws.

Not to mention, people are already trafficked while it’s illegal as well, so you’re not helping the situation by making the victims criminals who will now be less likely to engage with police.

Governments can legalize sex work but they can’t legitimize it, because governments don’t dictate societal attitudes. (Well, they sort of can through propaganda, but they shouldn’t. A democratic government should reflect the attitudes of its people, not the other way around.)

There is no way to save those people without destroying privacy.

I disagree. Legalizing prostitution and fighting the social stigma would prevent many of those crimes.

If you criminalize a service that will always be in demand, you won’t kill the market - you’ll just turn it into an unregulated black market run by criminals, who are much less inhibited than legal employers to use any means at their disposal (even threats and violence) to maximize their profit.

The exact same thing happened during the prohibition.

But if you have a legalized market… using threats and violence to force people to perform i.e. call center work is much less common.

Exactly. And once that’s all done, we can rest easy in the libertarian utopia, where whoever has the most weapons and acts the most brutally with them is in charge. Yay!

I wasn’t joking.

That’s some dystopian shit on several levels

Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.

Her need for a second source of income suggests teaching is not a viable career.

If you really don’t want teachers doing sex work on the side, you could just pay them enough to not need a second job in the first place.

Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.

Source?

Seems to be a viable career, if she can charge a $3000 cancellation fee…

I love how you admit to “using” prostitutes, because you don’t seem to view them as human beings. Seems like what’s good for the gander isn’t good for the goose.

Her getting fired means she’ll likely have to rely more on her prostitution to survive. This means the school has now increased the amount of prostitution. How are the schools against it if that’s the case? Maybe the schools should increase teachers wages so that they don’t need to be a prostitute.

and I wouldn’t want a drug dealer teaching chemistry,

Of course not. Why would you assume a salesperson be good at teaching manufacturing of what they sell?

You make it sound like she’s doing it for fun

Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.

The logic of your argument follows that teaching as a career itself shouldn’t be presented as a viable career is it requires a second job to finance the career of teaching.

Pretty telling to see which response(s) you’ve ignored.

I’m sorry about your head injury.

What a useless word soup. Sex can absolutely be transactional if it suits two consenting parties. Your world view being as narrow as a drinking straw isn’t a basis for how the rest of society chooses to live.

Yeah, before neoliberalism prostitution didn’t exist, so clearly it is good to victimize prostitutes, as that’s just sticking it to neoliberals, the ones who invented prostitution.

Do you think sex ed somehow cheapens sex? People understanding sex only makes it better for everyone in every way.

There is nothing about sex ed that teaches anyone that sex is a commodity. My experience in public school was there was no morality involved whatsoever. It was very sterile and 100% about learning technical shit about how our bodies work. Invaluable information, I might add.

And I grew up in what many would consider a liberal area, especially in terms of our local public education.

Freaks like you who are obsessed with which genitals a child has, are incapable of separating the physiological aspects of sex from the emotional ones. Sex ed is not sexy, dude, it was awkward as fuck. If anything, it turned me off of sex.

It’s like saying that learning about the chemical processes used to make meth in chemistry class is the same thing as smoking it.

Sounds like she was escorting at the time which despite being prostitution in a trenchcoat it’s legal in Texas.

Which is even more fucked because what she was doing was legal but still got fired.

So what’s the solution? Thousands of years of making it illegal to some degree or another does not seem to work.

Or perhaps sex is deeply ingrained in the human psyche just as much as food is, and we shouldn’t consider that a problem?

Why’s it wrong?

I never said it shouldn’t be taught at all, the problem is the people that want only abstinence taught. I don’t necessarily believe that teaching stoicism to kids in high-school is going to do much. It’d be best taught around the age of 21 when the brain is closer to finishing development and the individual has better emotional control overall. Teaching about relationships will, as it always has been, ineffective because people don’t want to hear it from someone else, they want to experience it. And they will hold lofty expectations regardless. It’s good to demonstrate and show what abusive relationships look like, but beyond that people won’t listen. There’s a reason that it seems like the amount of abusive and shitty relationships never seems to change.

the yoots?

Oh shit, I read the first few words of your reply out of context and was horrified at the thought that I may have accidentally spoiled some form of media for someone. I take that shit seriously.