
Online adverts 'exploit homeless for sex' - DanBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39568458
======
TillE
It's rare to see the exploitative nature of capitalism being expressed in
terms so stark.

This is not a stable system. We're spiraling towards ever-increasing
inequality; things are bad, and they're only getting worse. You can make a law
against this specific thing, but it doesn't really fix the problem. You have
to change the path you're on.

~~~
Terr_
In similar vein, you know those "happy rats don't become addicts" experiments?

I wouldn't be surprised if future generations look back on our current drug-
problems as an issue with how our socioeconomic system provides (or removes) a
sense of agency, security, and belonging among different groups of humans.

~~~
loeg
Rat Park (the "happy rats don't become addicts" experiment) doesn't replicate.

------
paulftw
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...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-rights-of-
sex-workers/)

~~~
dragonwriter
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.)

~~~
paulftw
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).

------
cperciva
Is this really all that different from when women would select partners
largely based on whether they were "good providers"?

Humans have been trading sex for food and shelter for thousands of years. It
might be slightly more explicit now, but I don't see that any fundamental
change has occurred.

~~~
Mz
I could argue both sides of this. I was a homemaker and full time mom for a
lot of years. I am currently homeless. I have turned down multiple offers to
move in with some guy or similar, in part due to my concerns about how that
can lead to loss of agency and can lead to someone being trapped.

I think the real issue is, as I have said twice elsewhere here, that housing
prices are insane and this is fueling a general rise in homelessness. Things
like that always impact the most vulnerable the worst.

I am for the decriminalization of sex work. If I were not medically
handicapped and if I thought I could make it work, I would seriously consider
moving to Nevada and taking up sex work to pay off my debts and come up with a
down payment for a house. I don't think that would work for me personally and
I do understand why there is a great hue and cry about putting people in
positions where they are de facto forced into sex work.

I get why this is click bait, but it is hard to have a reasoned discussion
about such subjects, for a lot of reasons.

~~~
rabboRubble
Thank you for sharing details about your life. Sending positive thoughts in
your direction. Good luck~

------
llukas
More inequality -> more shit like this.

~~~
Jabanga
If the landlords were just as poor as those desperate for a home, then
everyone would be worse off, even though society would be more equal. The
solution is to make society richer, so fewer people are desperate. The
solution is not to remove one of the options that the desperate resort to.
That only deals with the symptom of the problem. The problem is the
desperation caused by low-income, and can only be reduced by increasing
income.

~~~
chillwaves
Less inequality does not mean the landlords will be poor.

And wealth has been increasing at an accelerating pace, yet inequality
continues to rise. The very poorest of the world may be lifted by capitalism,
but not far and now those who were solidly middle class in the more successful
economies are falling behind.

Increasing income does nothing if it is funneled into the hands of the few
while the many are forced into prostitution.

~~~
Jabanga
My point is that it's the low income of those who can't afford housing that is
the problem, not the fact that others have higher income than them (not the
fact that there's income inequality).

If a causal relationship could be shown between reducing income inequality by
way of redistribution by the government, and the lower income subset of the
population seeing their income grow faster than it otherwise would, then such
programs would be a viable solution to the problems the young people are
facing, but only because of the effect it has on their income.

I would argue that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that all that things
being held equal, the institution of socialist programs to redistribute income
slows wage growth for all segments of society.

~~~
Mz
In all seriousness, a much, much bigger problem is the lack of actual
affordable housing. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs in the US
were torn down. This is probably a side effect of the Baby Boom generation
growing up awash in relative wealth. There is a global shortage of genuinely
affordable, basic housing.

With housing prices so insane, even a full time job can be inadequate to
support a person. If we do not solve this, no amount of additional income will
ever be enough. You can always just build bigger, more insane McMansions etc.
until only billionaires can afford housing. The rest of us will be
precariously housed at best unless and until we can reverse that trend.

~~~
Jabanga
The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income
problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term,
material poverty.

I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing affordability these
last few decades. From what I've read, most of the blame can be laid at the
feet of 1. zoning restrictions and 2. ironically, rent control, both of which
constrain supply.

~~~
Mz
I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a
distinct issue, separate from low income.

I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I
would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not
adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices.

It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no
doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically
worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially
expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment
designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical
norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a
really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.

~~~
Jabanga
Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will
be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an
effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has
validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had
increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of
their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income
would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs
are easier to bear with higher incomes.

I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?

~~~
Mz
I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest
([http://projectsro.blogspot.com](http://projectsro.blogspot.com)), but have
already come across this
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy)):

 _The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the
period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO
housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980._

More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft.
It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about
2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives.

In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities
have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a
reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far
short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same
time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the
best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely
affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some
charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and
rent it or sell it.

It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read
things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for
people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The
poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few
"losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.

------
Jabanga
This should be legal.

~~~
lsiebert
This seems potentially exploitative, making it difficult to withdraw consent
for sex, and would seem to fail to establish rights as a renter, at least here
in the US, meaning they could potentially be kicked out at any time they
refuse sex.

~~~
Jabanga
Yes I can definitely see a lot problems that can emerge from it, but making it
illegal I think will cause more problems than it solves, and fundamentally
goes against the principles of a free society. I do think desperate people are
capable of providing informed consent. We shouldn't take their agency away
from them (and if we do, we should do it officially, through the state
becoming their ward).

Also, it's often the case that making it illegal just pushes it further
underground, where people have fewer protections.

------
ksikka
How is this legal? It's just one step away from prostitution. The payment here
is not $ but a penny saved is a penny earned. Maybe this is technically legal
but it seems against the spirit of the law.

~~~
Mz
Prostitution is legal in the UK.

~~~
ksikka
Oh, oops. Missed that.

------
ams6110
Whatever happened to self-respect?

~~~
Analemma_
Self-respect is an abstract concept, and abstract concepts quickly become
devalued when, for example, it's below freezing at night in winter and you
don't have a roof over your head.

------
gech
Ah, the conservative ilk favors power structures that demean other humans. No
surprise.

~~~
mason55
Plenty on the left would agree that this should be legal. And I think most
people would agree that it's an undesirable outcome. The argument is usually
around what the solution is.

~~~
lsiebert
Hmm... I think that the left is split on legalizing prostitution. But most sex
positive liberals believe that prostitution and sex work should be legalized
in ways that prevents coercion, and this seems to reinforce it.

I mean, if you have a live in maid or nanny or cook, you may feed and house
her, but you still have to pay her at least minimum wage, right? I think
that's the difference between human slavery and a live in employee.

~~~
bostik
> _Hmm... I think that the left is split on legalizing prostitution._

I remember arguing the complexity back in junior high - and my opinions on the
matter have changed and become even more nuanced since then.

1) I personally believe that sex work should be decriminalised, with the
caveat that:

2) Sex work _cannot_ become an expected option for a profession

The reason for my second point is that there is a very short and very steep
slippery slope from that to the stage where job centres will turn into de
facto brothel funnels. One ugly aspect of being an unemployed job seeker is
that turning down job offers, even those where you don't have the matching
qualifications, risks cutting off job seeker's allowance.

I do not want to live in a world where such qualifications can be callously
reduced to "breathes, has useful orifice(s)".

