It should be decriminalized, not regulated. I would have liked to have been able to go to the police about the client who assaulted me, but unfortunately this didn't cross my mind as an option.
That's the Nordic model which has been a collosal failure. The workers get harassed by both police and clients alike, they are no better off. Actual legitimacy would allow workers to better organize and protect themselves, and would also better mitigate human trafficking by leveraging regulation. Germany is working on improving its laws to this end.
Yes, you're right. I had decriminalization in mind, but maybe chose the incorrect word.
And to elaborate on the prosecution part, in the wake of #MeToo, a lot of people came out with their stories, but not many of them pursued a legal route. I got the feeling that proving many of those allegations would be difficult in a legal system and whatever cases that did go through the legal system had a preponderance of evidence - along with immense social pressure - backing them up (think Bill Cosby/Harvery Weinstein). This is what made me wonder how much of a deterrent decriminalization/regulation would be on sexual assaults. Do we have to use public shaming, like in #MeToo, as a deterrent mechanism?
There are lots of bad things that arguably shouldn't be illegal but suppressed. Smoking, abortion, prostitution, drugs, etc. I think for society to fully embrace decriminalization there needs to be a diversion mechanism. Cigarettes have taxes and programs to quit. What would the prostitution equivalent be?
> I think for society to fully embrace decriminalization there needs to be a diversion mechanism.
Yes, let's make men who want to pay for sex watch an hour-long video extolling the virtues of "real" relationships.
The reality is that there are a lot of men who enter into "normal" relationships with women in large part because it gives them easier access to sex. Not all of them are happy. Lots of them overextend themselves financially, and generally do things they wouldn't otherwise do, to keep their girlfriends satisfied.
These are less direct exchanges, but they are exchanges nonetheless.
I'm living in East Asia, which has made me think more about the exchanges that take place in relationships between men and women. Here, it's common to see men with expressionless looks on their faces lugging their girlfriends' handbags, spending 20 minutes helping them take cutesy photos, pushing strollers carrying not children but tiny, professionally-groomed pups, etc.
As a warm-blooded man, you'd have a hard time convincing me that access to sex isn't a big reason these men are putting up with this stuff. Why do men who pay for sex need a diversion mechanism but the men who totally lose themselves in a relationship don't?
Arguably both do. I am well aware that both prostitution and 'real' relationships both exist on the same continuum of exchange. What I would like to see are long term studies on the outcomes in prostitution and non prostitution communities.
And then what? You're going to tell consenting adults what they're allowed to do based on some subjective analysis of these?
What happens if the men who pay directly for sex report shorter relationships and have lifespans 6 months shorter than men who don't, but they tell you they're happier? Or what happens if you discover that men who pay for sex while in relationships report longer relationships?
Why are you already bringing up disincentives? Your comments hint that you've already decided there is something inherently wrong with paying directly for sex. You're totally dismissing the possibility that research might very well find that prostitution is a net positive for individuals, and that most of the associated negatives are caused by its criminalization.
You're right, research could show that it's an unmitigated benefit and I would have to reevaluate my position. I cannot however live in the world of hypotheticals. My present understanding is based on existing information available.
Philosophically I am wary of the coercive power of money in relationships. The economy is misunderstood enough, I can't imagine the situation is better when it comes to intimacy markets. Can I coin the phrase Psychological economics?
I see parasocial relationships as something like a new virus that the human psyche has no immunity towards. People naturally think in emotional rather than transactional terms.
It's not hypothetical that prostitution is often called the world's oldest profession for a reason. Power dynamics that can seem unfair and might be abused exist in human relationships, like it or not, and have since time immemorial. Don't even look at the animal kingdom. It's not prettier.
Also, the relationship between an escort and a client is absolutely not a "parasocial relationship." You're abusing that term. Escorts and their clients have real relationships, even if you have a problem with the fact that they're based on transactional intimacy.
